Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL
(By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): It is provisionally estimated that 6·9 million working days were lost through industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the 12 months ended 31 August 1982.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that represents an improvement compared with most recent years and is a vindication of the step-by-step approach to industrial relations?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. The average figure for the previous 10 years is 12·1 million days lost. One should take out the two entirely fruitless disputes in the public sector—1·2 million days lost in the railway dispute, which continued until the members overruled their union leaders and went back to work, and 2·7 million days lost in the NHS dispute, which will be entirely fruitless, as there will be no improved offer.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best year recently was 1976? We lost fewer than 4 million working days' production when we did not have any of the legislation which is supposedly having such beneficial effects. If the present legislation is having such beneficial effects, what is the justification for further legislation during the next Session?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is selective in the figures that he quotes. If he looks at other years when his Government were in office, he will see that a different picture is presented. He omitted also to refer to the figures for stoppages in 1981, which was the best year for about 40 years.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that because of the attitude of his Department and the Government the trade union movement will be boiling with fury for a long time? Will he have discussions with the trade union movement to create better understanding and greater harmony between it and the Government instead of always wanting to fight it?

Mr. Tebbit: It is always open to trade union leaders to talk to me. We have offered to consult them on a number of matters, but they have chosen not to take advantage of that offer. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the fury of the politicians who lead the trade unions with the attitudes of their members. That was the Labour Party's fatal mistake when it backed the ASLEF leadership when all the members were saying "To hell with the strike, let us get back to work".

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current percentage level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the most recent unemployment figures.

Mr. Tebbit: At 9 September the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 14 per cent. In recent months both interest rates and inflation have been falling sharply. If, by increased productivity and realistic wage bargaining, this progress towards better competitiveness can be maintained, prospects for the creation of new jobs will improve further.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State make it abundantly clear that the Government care just as deeply as their critics about unemployment and all the human misery it involves? Will he support public authorities and councils like Birmingham which support "Buy-British" policies, because of the distressing unemployment, and will he defend them against organisations such as the EEC Commission? Is he aware that we have a £4 million monthly trade deficit with the Community in manufactured goods?

Mr. Tebbit: The Government have no less real sympathy for the unemployed than had their predecessors. That is marked by the scale of the programmes to assist the unemployed and to help particularly the long-term unemployed through schemes such as the community programme.
I hope that everyone in this country will look carefully at the goods that they buy, and that where British goods are well made and are at the right price they will buy them. However, it would not be right for local authorities to spend needlessly and overpay for goods that could be bought from our EEC partners at a better price. That would not be in the best interests of the ratepayers.

Mr. Cryer: Have not the Government put 2 million people in the dole queues as part of a deliberate policy to


grind people into the dust and to turn workers into nomadic supplicants begging for work from town to town? Are not the Minister's claims about competitive aids to British industry unjustified when the textile industry, for example, has adopted new measures and invested and yet is losing jobs by the thousand every month? Is it not time that the Government changed their policies to stimulate demand and enable manufacturing industry to recover?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to all the hon. Gentleman's questions is "No, Sir".

Mr. Needham: Would not the alternative strategy proposed by some Opposition Members increase inflation, interest rates and, fairly quickly thereafter, unemployment?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. He does not merely have to accept my word. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) told the CSEU conference at Eastbourne on 30 June 1978:
Inflation is the main enemy … you have a responsibility for your own jobs … inflation is the mother and father of unemployment.
All the programmes put forward by the Opposition would increase inflation and thus, in their own words and conviction, increase unemployment.

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman originally mentioned future prospects. When does he expect the Government's policies to change, as outlined, for example, in speeches at fringe meetings during the Tory Party conference by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that one would expect Government policies to change. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can attend some of his party's fringe meetings, such as those when they fiddle the votes in the NEC elections.

Youth Opportunities Programme

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people were on the youth opportunities programme at the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): At the end of August there were about 205,000 occupied places on the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Neubert: What response has there been from industry and commerce to the new training initiative, how many places have been forthcoming and is my hon. Friend satisfied with the standard of training opportunities likely to be available?

Mr. Morrison: By and large, I am satisfied by industry's response to the youth training scheme. I applaud the emphasis that the Manpower Services Commission is putting on quality. We wish to have as many industrial and commercial sponsors as we can.

Mr. Craigen: What view does the Department of Employment take of the fact that many people are having to take jobs well below their ability because of the present high unemployment? What impact will people working in jobs that do not fully use their abilities and qualifications have on the future of industrial relations?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard constantly from the Conservative Benches, jobs arise only out of profitable enterprises, and we believe that in the past young workers have potentially been priced out of jobs.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency a worthwhile youth opportunities programme is being held up by a Government Department being slow in releasing the land? What is the policy on availability of land for such projects?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot comment on the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I shall look into it. In general terms it is not a complaint that I have heard.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister consider the disparity in Scotland because of the differences in the school leaving dates and the take-up on the youth training initiative scheme? What is the position of managing agencies? Should not a good local authority like Fife be allowed to co-ordinate the activities in its area?

Mr. Morrison: The MSC is aware of the disparity in Scotland. We wish to adopt as flexible an approach as possible to managing agencies. If a local authority, local education authority or another sort of body wishes to be a managing agent, that is fine.

Job Creation

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce special measures substantially to reduce the level of unemployment.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The Government's economic strategy, which is sharply reducing inflation and interest rates, is designed to ensure that productive jobs are created in efficient and competitive firms. As a part of that strategy we are expanding our programme of special employment and training measures which aim to alleviate the worse effects of unemployment and to prepare for the future upturn in the economy.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware that the Government's present measures are creating further unemployment? Will he look closely at the advice on bolder measures to reduce unemployment, even from his friends at the CBI? Is he further aware that in Wales during two months in the Summer Recess 10,319 redundancies were declared? Is it not time that the Government did something to replace such jobs?

Mr. Alison: The assumption is incorrect. The measures are not increasing unemployment. The £1½ billion that we are spending on special unemployment measures directly assists and takes off the unemployment register at least 315,000.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As the Government's economic policies are creating new and real jobs, but only painfully slowly, will they seriously consider the current ideas for increasing work splitting and sharing, earlier retirement and later commencement of working life?

Mr. Alison:: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned some of the schemes that are now in train and in the course of development. We believe that they will do a great deal of good both to those who wish to retire early and to those who wish to get on the register to take their places.

Mr. Ashley: What are the Minister's views on unemployed women? Does he accept the research studies that show that the loss of housewives' earnings is a major cause of poverty? If so, what special measures does he have in mind to help unemployed women?

Mr. Alison: I mentioned the figure of £1½ billion. There are substantial programmes in support of various kinds of replacement opportunities, for training, for youth opportunities and for the disabled which will reduce by over 300,000 the number of those who would otherwise be on the unemployment register.

Employment Legislation

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what comments he has so far received on his Green Paper relating to employment legislation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): We hope to issue a consultative document within the next month or so. We have already received many comments from organisations and individuals urging the Government to legislate for proper democratic procedures to be observed within trade unions.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Whatever reservations may exist about the use of compulsory ballots in certain matters of industrial disputes, does my hon. and learned Friend understand that there is widespread support, I suspect on both sides of industry, especially with immediate events in mind, for compulsory ballots for the election of trade union officials? Is he aware that a proposal for such ballots would be widely supported if introduced in the next Session?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The need for drastic improvement in the conduct of their affairs by trade unions is obvious when one considers what happened on the day of action. The Department has received 50 separate complaints of threats of disciplinary action against people who were not minded to indulge in unlawful action. There is something wrong with the leadership of a union if this sort of persecution can take place. Clearly, there are some very nasty people in positions of authority.

Mr. Winnick: On the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Skinner: Would it not ring more true if this Conservative Government, who keep talking about the need for ballots in trade unions, started with a ballot for the chairmanship of the Tory Party? Why not have an election for that position instead of its being based on patronage? What about the whole of the Government—100 Ministers all picked by the Prime Minister? Why not have a ballot for those positions?

Mr. Waddington: We are concerned with getting more democracy within trade unions. There is a call for greater democracy when important decisions are made about the future of individuals. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend has deplored the intimidation through the closed shop which has manifested itself during the Health Service strike. Does he propose to make any changes to the code of

practice that is about to come before Parliament to strengthen that aspect of the closed shop so that there can be an end to that abuse?

Mr. Waddington: This is a matter that we are now considering with great care.

Motec (Livingston)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if any visit to Motec, Livingston, has been made by a Minister in his Department since 30 July.

Mr. Peter Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the Manpower Services Commission's interest, are the Government prepared to help to keep Motec open over the next 18 months?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he wrote to me three days ago indicating that the MSC was running programmes in the Livingston Motec and asking whether this matter could be taken further. I have forwarded his letter to the chairman of the MSC, so that he knows personally of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.

Mr. Barry Jones: In support of the determined advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on behalf of the Livingston motor technology centre, does the Minister accept that the closure of Livingston would go against the objectives of the new training scheme? Has he forgotten that road transport industry apprenticeships have slumped from the 1978 figure of 10,000 to the current figure of 1,000? When will he make a statement on the future of the Road Transport Industry Training Board?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future of the Livingston Motec, like that of the High Ercall Motec, is a matter initially for the Road Transport Industry Training Board itself. I made an announcement last Friday that the Road Transport Industry Training Board would remain together for the remaining 18 months.

European Economic Community

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on unemployment trends throughout the European Economic Community

Mr. Alison: Unemployment has increased in all countries of the European Community over the past year. Comparing figures for the latest available 12 months, unemployment has increased by 45 per cent. in Germany, 39 per cent. in the Netherlands, 23 per cent. in Italy and 11 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Rates of increase have also been greater than in the United Kingdom in Ireland and Belgium. In the 12 months to August, unemployment in the EEC as a whole increased by 19 per cent.

Mr. Adley: It is obviously to be regretted that our European partners have problems as bad and, in many cases, much worse than ours. Can my hon. Friend explain why those problems arose here first? Will he explain to people why this is not a peculiarly British problem?

Mr. Alison: It is easy to answer that question. The British got in first with that abysmal performance on unit labour costs which doubled during the period of the last Government, compared with a rise of one-sixth in. Germany.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Do the Government subscribe to the view that a great deal of unemployment in Europe is due to overmanning, or is that myth put out by the Government only in relation to this country?

Mr. Alison: No. I would not venture to make a generalisation on the economies of Europe, about which I know probably even less than the hon. Gentleman. I do not mean to be rude to him. I can, however, say that the numbers in employment in Britain have always been consistently higher than in the countries of our partners in Europe. Many more are employed in Britain traditionally. The fact that our partners are now experiencing a serious increase in unemployment is proportionately much more serious for them than for us.

Mr. Foster: Is it not true that the United Kingdom has the highest level of long-term unemployment throughout the whole of Europe? Is it not also true that, within the United Kingdom, the North of England has one of the highest incidences of long-term unemployment? Is it not time that the Minister began to take this problem seriously? Will he now bring in a programme of education and training for the long-term unemployed as he has done for the young unemployed?

Mr. Alison: Britain was, unfortunately, first in experiencing a sharp increase in unemployment following the effects of the drop in competitiveness caused by the previous Government. It follows that because unemployment has been rising more rapidly over a longer time, there will be more long-term unemployed. However, we have without doubt the best programme in the European Community, worth now 130,000 places, for helping those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the depressing unemployment figures in the European Economic Community and the Minister's great concern to battle against unemployment, might there not be a case for the Minister allocating two or three civil servants to study why this situation should exist in the EEC while countries on the edge of the Community that did not join—Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—have less than 4 per cent. unemployment?

Mr. Alison: There are also countries like Spain, which is not in the European Community, with an unemployment rate of nearly 14 per cent.

Mr. Radice: Has the Minister noticed that under a Socialist Government in France the seasonally adjusted unemployment level has been stable for the last 12 months? In the last four months, inflation has dropped 4 per cent., from 14 per cent., which was the inheritance from Mr. Barre, to 10 per cent. today? Would it not be better for the Government to concentrate on their own back yard, especially as a secret Treasury report says that unemployment will rise to 3·5 million in the middle of next year?

Mr. Alison: My latest information on the French unemployment figures is that they averaged 7·8 per cent. in 1981. The latest available figures—for August 1982—showed a very sharp increase to 10·9 per cent. There has also been an increase in the rate of inflation, a run on the currency and severe problems over the balance of payments.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of the new youth training scheme in 1983.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Following my right hon. Friend's announcement in the House on 21 June about the new youth training scheme, the Manpower Services Commission is now working urgently on the detailed planning of the scheme and is making good progress.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are certain parts of the country where it will be more difficult to establish the youth training scheme? I am thinking of the rural and border areas. Will he say what special measures are proposed to ensure that the scheme gets off to an excellent start in those areas as in other parts of the country?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be greater difficulties in the rural areas where the larger companies are not established. It is in these areas that we shall see the role of the managing agents proving much greater.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Department considering the serious and developing anxiety, which is becoming acute in areas of high unemployment, that the scheme might assist 16-year-olds but will put those slightly older at a severe disadvantage? Will he accept that there is a real danger in those areas that we may take one step forward, but that the Government's proposal may mean that we take two back?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a development of the youth opportunities programme. As he rightly says, it will enormously help the 16-year-olds. My right hon. Friend has announced the new community programme for those aged 18 and over.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend discuss the introduction of this scheme carefully with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that there are Ministry of Defence workshops with significant under-capacity in terms of young trainees, including one in my constituency, and that I very much hope that he will do something about this?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the circumstances in his constituency. Certainly, the Ministry of Defence sponsors schemes in its civilian establishments, and I expect the conversations between us and it to continue.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not inconsistent to propose to operate the young workers scheme with its £260 million budget alongside the new training scheme when the young workers scheme in no way provides training for young men and women leaving school? Would it not be better to give that money to the new training scheme as the MSC task group has suggested? Will the Minister give a specific answer to the question about the 17-year-olds? What do the Government intend to do for unemployed youngsters aged 17?

Mr. Morrison: I believe that the young workers scheme is entirely compatible with the youth training scheme, as I am sure that the 100,000 or so on the young workers scheme would agree. With regard to the 17-yearolds, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the original


undertaking related to unemployed 16-year-olds, but so far as is possible it will be extended to unemployed 17-yearolds within the £1,000 million budget.

Professional and Executive Recruitment

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the privatisation of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service.

Mr. Waddington: The Manpower Services Commission will be moving Professional and Executive Recruitment on to a fully commercial basis from April next year.

Mr. Lawrence: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that most encouraging answer. What cost will be spared to the public sector by this privatisation, which, incidentally, will remove an area of unfair competition from the private sector?

Mr. Waddington: I should make it plain that this first step is not privatisation. PER will be put on a fully commercial basis and will therefore cover its own cost, which means a saving of £5 million. We shall be better able to see the scope for privatisation when we have seen how able it is to operate on a commercial basis.

Mr. Philip Holland: I welcome the progress currently being made. Does my hon. and learned Friend have it in mind to remove further functions from that outsized quango, the Manpower Services Commission?

Mr. Waddington: That goes very wide of the question that I am currently answering. I think that I would be wise to stick to PER.

Job Mobility

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department gives to people wishing to move from industrial to clerical or other white collar jobs.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Taxpayers' money is currently being spent on training about 25,000 people in clerical and computer-related skills. The Open Tech will ensure that technician and supervisor training is more accessible.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the drift behind it, but is he aware that the microchip and other factors have brought and will continue to bring an end to a number of industrial jobs, which will be replaced by secretarial and white collar type jobs? Does he agree that renewed effort is needed in training for people to move from one area to the other?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that I and the Manpower Services Commission are concentrating on technician training, because we realise that that is the way ahead.

School Leavers

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate he has of the number of 1982 school leavers who are still unemployed.

Mr. Alison: I am not able to provide the information in the form requested. Statistics on school leaver

unemployment are not analysed according to the year in which the young people left school. However, the total number of school leavers under 18 years of age registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom at 9 September was 289,048.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the distributive trades, and particularly retailing, have a major role to play in eliminating this form of unemployment, which is an objective that we all share? Is he satisfied with the extent to which they are being involved in discussions and in bringing forward proposals to ensure an adequate training content in the schemes proposed for the new training initiative?

Mr. Alison: I am sure that both the new training initiative and opportunities for youngsters under the community programme include valuable training elements. With regard to jobs for younsters outside the training area, there is no doubt that the young workers scheme, now running at about 100,000 youngsters in work, is benefiting considerably from the amount of money that the Government are putting into it and from the willingness of the retail trade in particular to take on a large number of youngsters in this age group.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that there is now a different pattern in youth unemployment in terms of employers taking on young people? What is the Department doing to investigate the future problems, taking into account the changes in apprenticeship and the fact that employers are taking on part-time rather than full-time employees? Does he agree that we shall still have a youth unemploymet problem even if there is an upturn in the recession? What radical measures do the Government intend to take to overcome that?

Mr. Alison: One of the few silver linings to the dark cloud of unemployment in Britain is the dramatic increase in spending on training schemes of various kinds for young people. Whether it be the training element in the community programme, the huge sums now being spent on the youth opportunities programme or the huge new sums to be deployed in the youth training scheme, there is a very considerable range of opportunities and possibilities for every kind of training and vocational adaptation to the employment pattern of the future.

Mr. Alton: How many of those going into youth training schemes are likely to obtain full-time employment when they have completed the course? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prospects will create even more frustration and bitterness among many young people, who now face about 50 years on the dole?

Mr. Alison: The latest figures that I have for the youth opportunities programme show that 50 per cent. of youngsters completing a YOP course will either obtain work or go on to further education.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How many of the unemployed school leavers are aged 18-plus and have, unfortunately, failed their A-levels and have thus not been able to go on to a university or polytechnic? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are great problems in this area as many of the schemes to which he refers do not apply to school leavers aged 18-plus? Is he aware that many of us are concerned about that group?

Mr. Alison: I cannot risk giving an off-the-cuff answer on the statistics, but if my hon. Friend will put down a


specific question I shall, of course, answer it. He will appreciate that the community programme, which looks after the longer-term unemployed aged 18 to 24, who have been unemployed for more than six months, has expanded from 30,000 to 130,000 places as a result of my right hon. Friend's latest measures.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures of the number of people who are unemployed in the United Kingdom; and how many of these have been unemployed for more than two years and one year, respectively.

Mr. Tebbit: At 9 September the total number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,343,075. The latest analysis by duration of unemployment is for 8 July when, out of a total of 3,190,621 unemployed people in the United Kingdom, 394,865 had been unemployed for more than 104 weeks and 675,641 had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks and up to 104 weeks.

Mr. Evans: Are not those scandalous figures an indictment of the Government's policies? The Government boast about reducing inflation, but has not that been at the expense of 4 million families who have had their living standards slashed through being put on the dole queue? Will the Minister think again about his policy of introducing voluntary registration? As people who are unemployed for more than 12 months lose benefit, does he agree that it is important to find out how many there are and that they should be encouraged to go to the jobcentres and register to show how bad the Government's employment policy really is?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman muddles a number of things. First, he muddles whether people should be encouraged to seek work through the jobcentres or whether they should be compelled to do so. The question of benefit is entirely different and there is no change in the rules with regard to benefits. Secondly, he should understand that many of the unemployed are paying the price, not for the present reduction in inflation, but for the inflation created by the Labour Government, whom the hon. Gentleman from time to time supported.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the high figures that he has just given the House, it would be wrong for the Government to take action in the near future that would result in an increase in the level of immigration?

Mr. Tebbit: Matters concerning the levels of immigration are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that if my hon. Friend tables a question to him, he will receive a satisfactory reply.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are all concerned about reducing inflation and interest rates, and that there is a general desire to do that? But does not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that to reduce interest rates and inflation at the expense of moving towards 4 million unemployed is disastrous and an indictment of the Government's policies, which will be proved at the next general election?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman makes no more effort to understand the issues now than he did five years

ago. I strongly recollect the time when a number of his hon. Friends below the Gangway had to be told by the Leader of the Opposition, in his own words,
I think that my hon. Friend must face the fact that inflation helps to cause unemployment".—[Official Report, 10 Oct. 1975; Vol. 898, c.1269.]
It is only by destroying inflation that we can help to build a better foundation on which to create jobs.

Mr. John Grant: Is it not the case that Britain has lost a job for every minute that the Government have been in office? When the Secretary of State examines the forecast of the Manpower Services Commission for the long-term unemployed, will he think that special measures will make more than a small dent in the total?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may call helping about half a million people and reducing the number of registered unemployed by more than one-third of a million a small dent, but when it comes to interest and compassion in these matters, I notice that not a single question on employment affairs has been tabled today by any Liberal or SDP Member. That must spring from their embarrassment at having three different policies between them—one for the Liberals and two for the SDP.

Mr. Madel: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to consider diverting some of the cash available to help the unemployed towards expanding further education by local education authorities, which will provide rapid help for unemployed school leavers?

Mr. Tebbit: The best way to provide rapid help for unemployed school leavers is to follow the path on which we are set, and that is through the youth training scheme. I hope that local authorities will continue to improve the facilities that they offer to youngsters at schools. I am sure that that can be done, not least by looking for more efficient and effective ways to use the manpower and financial resources already at their command.

Mr. Varley: Why does the Secretary of State give the impression of being so brutal and callous when dealing with the question of unemployment? Will he say something about the Treasury report—not yet published, but of which I am sure he is aware—which predicts that registered unemployment next year will be 3½ million? Does he agree that unchanged policies, to which he appears to be wedded, mean greater unemployment, greater waste of precious resources and greater social devastation? Does he not have an ounce of compassion in that body of his?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse my callousness and brutality towards him and his colleagues, who caused so many of the problems, with the compassion that the Government feel towards those suffering from the policies adopted by the Opposition when they were in office. I have spoken more than once of selective amnesia. The right hon. Gentleman is suffering from amnesia again today, because he has even forgotten that the Treasury does not make such forecasts.

Employment and Training Initiatives

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives have come from employers on new employment and training measures.

Mr. Alison: We are very heartened by the response we have had to our proposals on youth training. Employers recognise the imaginative steps the Government are taking on training, and we are confident that the youth training scheme will prove to be a great success.

Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Has he considered the possibility of some senior employees taking early retirement and then returning to their employers on a part-time basis to help to develop new training ideas and encourage local youngsters to take part in important new training initiatives? If that thought could be developed, would it not greatly supplement the activities of the MSC?

Mr. Alison: It is an interesting idea. The range of support programmes in the special employment area is flexible enough in its approach to early retirement and part-time work to include such an interesting initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Chief of the Defence Staff. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be having talks with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how much disruption there must be within the National Health Service, how many patients must suffer and what conditions must prevail before the Government send the NHS dispute to arbitration? Will she take this opportunity to dissociate herself from the remarks of some of her right hon. and hon. Friends, to the effect that they would welcome the dismantling of the Welfare State?

The Prime Minister: I condemn any suffering to the elderly, the sick or children in the NHS. There need be none, and there should be none. It comes about by the decision of a few ill-motivated people in some of the unions. I commend the work of many others in the unions who are carrying out, not only their own work, but that of many others.
The offers that have been made to the NHS workers are reasonable. There is £1·1 billion on the table, and there is hope that talks will be resumed to end the dispute. The Government have an excellent record over the Welfare State, and an especially good one in relation to the NHS.

Mr. Ancram: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time today to appreciate that tomorrow's industrial action by the Post Office Engineering Union will not be so much a willing and spontaneous demonstration as one created by threats of expulsion from the union and the loss of their jobs against members who refuse to take part? Will she take this opportunity roundly to condemn such a crude form of intimidation and congratulate those who stand up against it?

The Prime Minster: We roundly condemn any intimidation and also any action by those who threaten that unless people obey their unions they will lose their jobs. That is not the language of a free country.

Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister take this first opportunity since the Summer Recess to tell the House and the country when she expects the terrible unemployment figures to begin to fall? I know that she does not like to make such prophesies about these matters, but as she has a new Treasury forecast, can she give us some idea of what it says?

The Prime Minister: The only Treasury forecast due to be published is that which comes out in the autumn. It does not give forecasts of the numbers of those expected to be unemployed. Those have not been given, neither are they customarily given, and neither did the Opposition given them when in office. There is a report on the national insurance fund, in which assumptions must be made. That is usually published at about this time of year.
The best way to reduce unemployment is, as the CBI said, to be far more competitive so that we have a larger share of the existing home market and also a larger share of the existing export market.

Mr. Foot: Have not the Government been forced to make fresh forecasts since the Budget about the prospects for economic growth? Now that the prospects this year are down to 0·5 per cent. and between 1 and 1½ per cent. next year, does that not mean a further appalling increase in unemployment? Why will the right hon. Lady not face these facts and change the policies that have caused them?

The Prime Minister: Because rhetoric does not change facts or produce jobs. If it did, unemployment would not have doubled under the right hon. Gentleman. Forecasts the world over about growth in the coming year have been revised downwards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult problems that have hit Europe, particularly Germany. The way to increase jobs is not through excuses or rhetoric Rather, as the CBI said:
There can be no solution to unemployment without greater competitiveness, for which the major responsibility must rest with business".
As Mr. Sid Weighell said at the Trade Union Congress on 18 September,
as far as the four million unemployed are concerned you are responsible for them being there".

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady now confirm that there have been fresh forecasts since the Budget, which will mean extra unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen—[HON MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]. I shall answer the question accurately in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen many forecasts of growth for the coming year which are less than anticipated at the time of the Budget. Britain's unemployment position will depend upon how big a share of the home and export markets we get. As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on previous occasions, had we retained the share of the home and export markets that we had 12 years ago, there would now be 1½ million more jobs in Britain. That means that we must compete.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: While in no sense seeking to be critical of the rights of the individual to free speech on any issue, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees that it is a sad day for the Church of England when a group of supposedly eminent—but certainly unrepresentative—clerics seek to undermine the defence of the United Kingdom in so far as they are prepared to shelter under the United States nuclear umbrella—[Interruption.]—but are not prepared to allow such weapons on United Kingdom soil? Does that not smack of hypocrisy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have risen to my feet to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is heard. There is a running commentary from some hon. Members whenever something is said that they do not like. That is not in order in this place. Everyone is allowed to express his opinion. Mr. Robert Atkins.

Mr. Atkins: Would you like me to say it all again, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, thank you.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear weapons are an essential part of Britain's security. If there were any suggestion of unilateral disarmament, it would threaten the peace and security that we have enjoyed for 37 years. I have read of the report to which my hon. Friend has referred. I agree with him that people have total freedom of speech. However, this is not an official report of the Church of England and I understand that it will not come before the General Synod until next year.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Prime Minister referred earlier to assumptions which, at about this time of year, are issued for the purposes of the national insurance fund. Do they show unemployment falling, rising or remaining the same?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must await the report of the Government Actuary, which will be published at the appropriate time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is not the Prime Minister concerned about the future of the British steel industry? Is she aware that in Airdrie, in my constituency, where male unemployment is 37 per cent., additional redundancies were announced last week at the Imperial plant? Will she give some indication that the Government have a shred of confidence in the future of the steel industry, particularly in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some critical decisions are being made this week in Europe, where we are trying to agree to limit our exports to the United States to avoid countervailing duties of about 20 per cent., which would have extremely damaging effects on our own steel industry. It is hoped that Germany will agree with the rest of Europe that we should so limit our exports, but it is a critical week. Improved steel sales are, of course, necessary for improved steel production. I can only stress that it would help very much if people purchased more British cars rather than foreign cars. In doing so they would be buying not only British cars but British steel and British components. It goes without saying that the standard of those cars must be the equal of those of any other country.

Mr. Needham: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the decision of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) not to attend last week's parade organised by the City of London? Does she agree that that cast a cloud over the achievement of our Service men, many of whom come from my constituency, where the right hon. Gentleman claims that he will have a walkover at the next general election?

The Prime Minister: Nothing can cloud the achievement of our Service men. It was magnificent.

Mr. Guy Barnett: How many factories has the right hon. Lady visited since she became Prime Minister and how many of those factories have subsequently gone bankrupt or are in receivership?

The Prime Minister: I have visited many factories, some of which are flourishing and some of which are not. That is perfectly evident. There is a deep world recession and how we weather it will depend upon whether we stay competitive, not upon the rhetoric of Opposition Members. The thing that harms our industry most is strikes.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jessel: As the drop in interest rates, which is linked with the drop in inflation, means that anyone with a new £20,000 mortgage is already saving £8 a week net of tax and anyone with a new £15,000 mortgage is saving £6 net of tax, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people buying houses and flats are tremendously pleased and hope that she will remain implacable in her determination to see that it continues?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. The Government can help to bring unemployment down by continuing to bring inflation down, and mortgage rates will follow. They can continue to bring interest rates down. As my hon. Friend knows, we have also reduced the national insurance surcharge, which was introduced by the Labour Party, and taken off some hire purchase controls. That will inject into the economy the possibility of more purchasing power. How many more jobs result from that purchasing power will depend on how far we buy British goods and how far it goes into increased output as opposed to imports.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister consult her Housing Ministers about the Association of District Councils all-party meeting held this morning to discuss the miserable offer made by the Government for repairs in new towns? Is she aware that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches expressed deep concern this morning at the scandalous offer of £8 million to cope with an estimated cost of £90 million? Does she not agree that this is a cost for the Exchequer and not for local ratepayers and rent payers, especially in hard-hit areas such as the North-East?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the offer on new towns, the hon. Gentleman must question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. May I point out that, with regard to general housing policy, there have already been 370,000 council houses or new town houses sold during the lifetime of the this Government?


That is an excellent opportunity. With regard to building and new building, may I point out that the capital allocations to local authorities are underspent?

New Member

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Gareth Lodwig Wardell.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the British Steel Corporation".
This matter deals specifically with the alarming news that the British Steel Corporation is once again in crisis and that certain measures will be taken unless an improvement is seen by the end of the month. This crisis is of urgent and serious proportions. It threatens the existence of five major plants—Teesside, Scunthorpe, Port Talbot, Ravenscraig and Llanwern—the jobs of thousands of steel workers and the future of a viable steel industry in Britain. No plant is safe from this threat, and the repercussions of any closure would be enormous.
This crisis has been brought about by the collapse in demand for steel in this country. It is a direct product of the decline in the manufacturing sector, which has been hugely accelerated over the past three years. It is obvious that the cash limits laid on the British Steel Corporation by the Government cannot be met. The crisis is compounded by the flood of imports, which, in the first quarter of this year, reached more than 30 per cent. of the home market.
The House should also have an immediate report on the negotiations taking place on British steel imports into the United States, which amount to less than 1 per cent. of the American domestic market.
The British Steel Corporation is a major nationalised industry of vital importance to the industrial future of Britain. This House must hear what action the Government are taking and will take to prevent a further reduction in capacity and another round of redundancies.
I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this motion for an immediate debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) gave me notice before midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the British Steel Corporation".
The House is aware that this is a serious matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has brought our attention.
The House knows that whenever these applications come to me they cause me grievous concern, but it has also instructed me to take into account the several factors set out in the order. As I said yesterday, and I repeat today, there are several factors that I must bear in mind, which in no way diminishes my own concern or that of the House about this grievous issue. The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Standing Order No. 9 Applications

Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that we have now had Standing Order No. 9 applications on two days from the Opposition Front Bench. While in no way underestimating the importance of the subjects raised or, indeed, the seriousness of the matters that have been put forward, is not Standing Order No. 9 normally regarded as particularly applicable to Back Benchers? The opportunities for the official Opposition to bring forward their points of view are widespread. Would it not be a bad practice if this became a daily occurrence?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell and Wishaw) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is under a misapprehension. It is quite common for Standing Order No. 9 applications to come from the Front Bench. The House has given me a heavy responsibility which—I can tell the House because I had warning before midday—always causes me a great deal of anxious concern when I am weighing up the merits of the case and the other arguments that I have in mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My decision cannot be raised on a point of order.

Dr. Bray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall not start the game of raising points of order which are not points of order to challenge the decision that I have taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Dr. Bray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) suggested that this was not a matter of concern to Back Benchers. It is a matter of concern to those on the Opposition Benches. You will be aware that the situation is changing daily. If the Council of Ministers is to meet tomorrow without the benefit of the guidance of the House, it will need the guidance of the House even more tomorrow after it has met.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is reopening the subject.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Ordered,

That the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

EDUCATION AWARDS

Ordered,

That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Wages Councils Act (Amendment)

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal section 16 of the Wages Councils Act 1979.
In moving this First Reading I am deeply conscious of the fact that I can expect scant support from the Secretary of State for Employment, who firmly believes that school leavers should work for £15 a week, and who is committed to set aside the fair wages resolution of 1946 and to denounce convention 94 of the International Labour Organisation, but I hope that in spite of the widely held opinions of this disastrous Secretary of State the House will support me and the will of the people in their desire to see compassion afforded to our disabled people.
Section 16 of the Wages Councils Act provides that, where both sides of a wages council agree, and subject to the verification of the Wages Inspectorate, disabled workers can be paid a lower rate than that set out in the appropriate wages council order.
The types of disability vary widely. What they all have in common is the threat held over people's heads that they will lose their jobs if the lower rate is not agreed by the wages council. That is a dreadful threat and leads the few workers for whom an application is made to acquiesce in the permit application being made. Alternatively, in some cases it leads to the parents of the disabled youngsters pressing desperately—because of the need to keep the measure of independence that a job gives—for them to keep the job, even at any price.
I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister's response a few moments ago at Question Time, when she said "We roundly condemn any discrimination which could threaten people with the loss of their jobs." If the Prime Minister has any integrity left, she will be glad to support me in my efforts to have this modest amendment made to the Act.
Another feature that all such applications have in common is that the Wages Inspectorate, which validates the original application, does not ask whether the person for whom the permit is sought is a registered disabled worker. The assessment is made by the inspector, sometimes backed up by medical documentation and sometimes not. In all cases, however, the plea of the employer is that the person concerned does not work as fast as the able-bodied workers.
The Government own and run Remploy, a good institution for the employment of disabled workers. The company employs able-bodied and disabled workers on identical rates of pay. At Remploy, a lower output is required from disabled workers, and rightly so, but recognition is given to the fact that disabled workers need the same money—if not more money—to live on as other

workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well bear in mind, when he introduces his next financial statement, that people who have the misfortune to wear calipers wear out far more pairs of trousers than able-bodied people do. He might consider giving them a special allowance.
With the wages councils, the reverse is the assumption, with the ever-present threat of unemployment as the incentive to agree to wages below the minimum rate for the job. There are already over 213,000 disabled workers unemployed. The average all-grade rate for wages councils—it includes negotiated rates as well as the rates at the top of the skill ladder—is estimated to be about £74 a week. That is an increase of about 50 per cent. since the consolidating Act was passed, and we are all grateful for that. What is more important is that the number of permits applied for has increased even more.
When the Act was passed, the number of permits was 21 for 32 wages councils. A year later, when the average rate rose by 23 per cent.., the applications rose by a staggering 229 per cent., from 21 to 69. It is true that in 1981 there was a drop from 69 to 31. During the course of this year the average wage council increase has been about 7 per cent., and the first five months of the year saw 65 lower rated payments granted. If that pattern were to be extended to the year end, 156 permits would be granted this year—a 650 per cent. increase in the number of permits so granted. No one can say that in a three-year period the disabled seeking non-sheltered employment have risen in number by 650 per cent.
The section is mean-minded. In 1982 the total number of permits granted—that is, using the extension—is 0·01 per cent. of the entire work force covered by wages councils. In previous years the figures had been even smaller. I estimate that merely to administer the permit scheme costs a maximum of £16,000, and a minimum of £8,000, a year, simply to save a few employers a maximum of £384 a year, at a cost to the State of about £70 per worker. Therefore, the repeal is warranted on the grounds of morality and of cost. I hope that I shall have the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Michael English, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. George Robertson and Mr. Frank R. White.

WAGES COUNCILS ACT 1979 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert C. Brown: accordingly presented a Bill to repeal section 16 of the Wages Councils Act 1979: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 178].

Orders of the Day — Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

QUESTIONS TO PERSONS SUMMONED FOR JURY SERVICE

'In section 2(5) of the Juries Act 1974—

(a) for the words "attends in pursuance of such a summons, or of a summons" there shall be substituted the words "is summoned under subsection (4) above or"; and
(b) after the word "may", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "at any time".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General outlined the proposal during the Second Reading Committee of the Bill. He said then—as I believe now—that there cannot be any great difference of opinion on the principle of what is proposed. While the Government have reluctantly agreed not to proceed in the Bill with any proposal affecting the eligibility of persons for jury service, I believe that this minor but useful reform is something that we can all agree upon, so that it can take its place in the Bill rather than awaiting any other legislative vehicle.
The purpose of the new clause is to amend section 2(5) of the Juries Act 1974 so that "the appropriate officer" may put questions to a prospective juror to ascertain whether he is qualified for jury service at any time and not just when he attends in pursuance of a summons. The result will be that if a juror refuses without reasonable excuse to answer or knowingly or recklessly gives a false answer to the questions which are customarily set out in the jury summons, he will commit an offence which is at the moment triable summarily before magistrates with a maximum fine of £100. That will be increased to £200 by virtue of the Criminal Justice Bill.
The jury summons asks a prospective juror whether he is qualified for jury service. If he knowingly or recklessly—the reasons for disqualification are clearly set out in the form—gives a false answer by saying that he is when he is not, he will commit the offence. Likewise, if he says that he is not qualified and gives a reason which is false—for example, by inventing a disqualifying conviction—he will also commit the offence. That will cover those who seek to use this method to avoid jury service.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: As the Attorney-General said, this side of the House would have strongly opposed any attempt by the Government substantially to change the rules affecting the disability of jurors. I appreciate that the new clause is not a change of great substance, and it is sensible. It is obviously wrong for a potential juror to conceal previous convictions or relevant information that would disbar him from jury service. It is equally wrong for him to say that he is disqualified from serving on a jury when that is a misstatement. Such devices bring the jury system, which we all prize, into

disrepute. the Attorney-General has ensured that the jury service operates as we should like it to operate and as it is meant to operate. The new clause strengthens, rather than weakens, the jury system and we on this side of the House fully support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONSENTS TO PROSECUTIONS UNDER EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT 1883

'(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 7(1) of the Explosive Substances Act I883.

"(1) Proceedings for a crime under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.".
(2) In section 9(2) of that Act (application to Scotland) the following paragraph shall be inserted before the paragraph relating to the expression "Attorney-General"—

"Section 7(1) shall be omitted.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a minor and technical change to the Explosive Substances Act 1883. At present, in a rather strange manner, my consent to prosecution is circumscribed by section 7 of the Act so that it can be given only after a charge before the justices has been brought. That leads to a cumbersome procedure between myself and the Director of Public Prosecutions in explosives cases, which may cause delay, because neither the police nor the DPP wish to institute proceedings under the Act before knowing whether I am likely to consent to their continuance. If I do not consent the proceedings must be withdrawn and abandoned.
Therefore, the police report the alleged offence to the DPP, who, if he thinks it appropriate, seeks guidance from me on whether I would consent if proceedings were instituted. If I say that I would consent, the DPP arranges for the police to charge the defendant and bring him before the court.
When that has been done the police report back to the DPP, who has to submit forms of fiat to me for my signature. Those are sent back to the DPP and, from his Department, to the police, who are then able to ask magistrates to commit the defendant to the Crown court for trial.
That shows the unnecessary waste of time and expense spent of messages and all the paperwork involved going between the police, the DPP and myself. It can lead to delays between the time when a defendant is first brought before the court and the time when the Crown is able to seek his committal. In recent proceedings involving petrol bombers that has resulted in harsh criticism of the DPP and myself by the magistrates concerned, who did not appreciate the rather silly formalities that had to be gone through.
3.45 pm
The new clause brings the consent provision into line with other provisions where my consent to a prosecution is required. In future, where I am satisfied that it is proper to institute proceedings, I shall be able to consent to them immediately, rather than having to wait until the man has
been charged and brought before a court. That will help to reduce delays by avoidng the need to make two separate approaches.
The present wording of section 7 requires my consent where a person has been charged before the justices and there is an argument that the need for my consent could be avoided by adding counts under the Explosive Substances Act to the indictment after committal on other charges. Subsection (1) of the new clause puts it beyond doubt that my consent is required for all offences under the Act, at whatever stage the proceedings are instituted. Subsection (2) applies to Scotland and makes sense of the consent requirement there.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The Attorney-General has outlined a procedure which will surprise most people. It is clearly cumbersome and unnecessary and by bringing his consent requirements into line with those in other cases, particularly other important cases, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a service to justice. We on this side of the House commend him.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not say "on this side of the House".

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL CORONER

'(1) Where an event has occurred which entitles or requires a coroner to exercise his functions, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a special coroner to assume all the functions and duties of a coroner in relation to that event.

(2) Such appointment may be made notwithstanding that a coroner has commenced to exercise his functions in relation to that event and in such case any proceedings carried out by the coroner prior to such appointment shall be null and void and the coroner shall cease to be empowered to carry out his functions in relation to that event.

(3) No person shall be appointed a special coroner under this section who is not a judge of the High Court or a circuit judge.'.—[Mr. George Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: We may discuss at the same time the following:
New clause 8—Coroners' courts (reports)—
'(1) Where a report into the circumstances surrounding the death of any person has been prepared by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of any police force or any statutory authority such report shall be disclosed to the coroner who is responsible for holding an inquest into the death of that person.
(2) Any such report as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall if requested be disclosed to any properly interested persons.'.
New clause 9—Judges to act as coroners—
'(1) When any person has died in circumstances falling within subsection (2) below or in any other circumstances where it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State the inquest into that person's death shall be held by one of Her Majesty's judges of the Supreme Court who shall have all the functions and powers of a Coroner.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are:—

(a) deaths in police custody;
(b) deaths in prison establishments;
(c) multiple deaths of five or more persons;
(d) deaths of persons at their place of work.'.

New clause 12—Legal aid for persons appearing before special coroners—

'The provisions of paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid Act 1974 in relation to proceedings before special coroners shall come into force with the commencement of this Act.'.
New clause 14—Rights of persons at inquests—
'Without prejudice to any enactment relating to the examination of witnesses, the following categories of persons shall have at any inquest a right to be present and to examine any witness either in person or by counsel or solicitor:

(a) the next of kin of the deceased;
(b) the parents, children and personal representatives of the deceased;
(c) any beneficiary of a policy for insurance on the life of the deceased and any insurer having issued such a policy;
(d) any person whose act or omission on the part of himself, his servants or agents, may be thought to have caused or contributed to the death of the deceased;
(e) a chief officer of police;
(f) any person appointed by a government department to attend the inquest.'.

New clause 16—Coroner to summon jury for case of death in police custody etc.—
'In section 13 subsection (2) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 (which requires a coroner to summon a jury in certain circumstances) there shall be added after paragraph (e) the following paragraph—
or
(f) that the death occurred while the deceased was in police custody, or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported execution of his duty;".'

Mr. Cunningham: I could, as legitimately as the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), begin my remarks by claiming to speak on behalf of this side of the House. I hope that the Labour Party will get used to the idea that it does not constitute the whole of the Opposition side of the House. It is a large part of it, but by no means the whole of it. Right hon. and hon. Members who speak from the Opposition Front Bench, as I used to do, speak for the Labour Party and not for this side of the House.
There is an awful lot that is unsatisfactory about the taw in relation to coroners and it is not only high time, but well beyond time, when the House should decide either to implement or not to implement the proposals set out in the Brodrick report published well over a decade ago.
One of the unsatisfactory features is highlighted by recent events, including the arguments over the financing of coroners which arise from the South Yorkshire case, where an unbearable position is being suffered by the South Yorkshire coroner in his relations with the appropriate county council. The Home Office should take a more active interest in that matter. We cannot leave a situation where a local coroner is left in doubt about whether he will have to meet out of his own pocket certain expenses that arose from actions that he did not initiate.
The new clause deals particularly with the desirability of having a special coroner—I suggest a High court judge or at least a circuit judge—to take over from the normal coroner the conduct of an inquiry and, if necessary, an inquest in special cases.
The gist of the proposal, which was widely canvassed in Committee, is that inquiries into some deaths are particularly difficult and sensitive. They are very few. If the new clause were passed we might end up with four or five such cases in a decade—no more than that. However, the fact that they are few does not mean that the change is undesirable. The disquiet that the public feel about the conduct of certain inquests is a disquiet about the administration of justice, which we should not allow to continue.
The range of work of a coroner is enormous. By that I mean the vertical range of work. At the bottom end, he conducts mere inquiries on paper and by oral inquiry. He may conduct an inquest with or without a jury and, at the top end, he may conduct an inquest such as the Blair Peach, the Deptford or the South Yorkshire inquiries, where even a High Court judge might find that, procedurally, the case is not easy to handle.
4 pm
It is not normal in any walk of life to find one person who is competent to carry out such a vertical range of work with no possibility of substituting a "higher person" to conduct the work, if that is demanded by the circumstances. High Court judges are coroners at the moment. There is doubt in some quarters as to whether that is undeniably true, but the Home Office said so explicitly, and who am I to question the knowledge of the Home Office of the law on this subject?
Let it be understood clearly that we already distinguish between inquests into some deaths and inquests into others. The objections attributed to the Coroners' Society, that the proposal would involve a classification of deaths into upper and lower class deaths, is invalid, because we already have a system that allows a coroner to sit without a jury in certain circumstances but with a jury in other circumstances. That matter is appealable to the normal law courts. Occasionally, for example in the case of Blair Peach, the courts have ordered a coroner to conduct an inquiry with a jury—an upper class rather than a lower class inquiry. What I am suggesting would involve simply another gradation where one could remove the matter from the normal coroner and give it to a High Court or circuit judge acting as a coroner.
The difficulty arises because the present law confers the jurisdiction in respect of a case geographically, according to where the body lies or was found. Therefore, there is not even the opportunity that exists in many judicial proceedings whereby the judicial authorities, secretly but nevertheless effectively, choose one person rather than another to conduct a case. It is no secret that some High Court cases are believed to be especially difficult and call for qualities that one judge may possess more perfectly than another. That can be arranged, but it cannot be arranged for a coroner's inquest. If the body is found in his area, that coroner must conduct the inquiry.
The only way in which the coroner can arrange for someone else to conduct the inquiry—for example, if he is on holiday, if the deceased was known to him or if he is otherwise engaged—is to appoint a deputy. That is unsatisfactory and contrary to the normal habits of the English legal system. High Court judges already have the quality of coroners, although no geographical jurisdiction, and in most cases we can find a way to decide that person X will conduct the case rather than person Y.
I moved this new clause in Committee. Despite the apparent opinion of the BBC programme "World at One" today, the Labour Party did not move it. I do not expect the BBC always to be up to date on such matters, but it should try. I do not blame my former right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It is up to the BBC, not its interviewees, to get its facts right. It is no secret that, in Committee, the Law Officers—who have now disappeared and left the Home

Office to take a much harsher line on the Front Bench—were sympathetic. The Solicitor-General left the Committee in no doubt that he would be happy to see the matter go through.
Since then, I have altered the proposal slightly to allow not only a High Court judge but a circuit judge to be appointed and to take account of the position where a normal coroner had begun his work, although not the inquest, so that if a special coroner was appointed he would take over after the initial inquiries had been partially completed.
At column 49 of the Standing Committee proceedings, the Solicitor-General said:
I express sympathy for what I believe lies behind the amendment.
In column 50, he said:
I recognise, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that there could be cases for which a different kind of skill and experience was required.
The Solicitor-General meant different skills and experience from that of most normal coroners. He went on:
I have in mind such cases in which the skill and experience required is in the direction and control of the proceedings, which can be a most expert matter when it is necessary, in the interests of justice as a whole, that a proper procedure is devised and followed.
In this and in many other remarks, the Solicitor-General got it across to the Committee loudly and clearly that the Law Officers wished the change. At that stage, enter the Home Office, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. I see the Minister of State shaking his head, but the fact is that the Law Officers showed clearly that they wished the change and it was only when the Home Office entered the scene—unfortunately, the Home Office is responsible for legislation on coroners, although not this legislation—that we encountered far less sympathy in the matter.
As well as expressing sympathy, the Solicitor-General made other interesting comments. I am sorry that he is not here because I should have wished to see him nodding his head while the representative of the Home Office was shaking his. The Solicitor-General said:
I am reminded that all judges of the High Court have the jurisdiction of coroners throughout England and Wales.
He went on to say that the only problem was how one could overcome the legal technicality of getting High Court judges to exercise that jurisdiction, because it had not been exercised for a long time. He said that he would consider the matter. He went on:
I simply cannot tell the Committee how that jurisdiction can be brought into effect or who has to do what in order to ensure that a High Court judge may exercise that jurisdiction." —[ Official Report, Standing Committee A,8 July 1982; cc. 49–50.] 
Once again, the Solicitor-General showed clearly that he would wish to have the possibility of invoking the general jurisdiction of High Court judges that had not been exercised in practice.
I remind the Minister of State that his colleague, the other Minister of State, in a written reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in July 1981, said categorically:
High Court judges already have the powers of coroners, but fundamental changes in the procedure of coroners' courts would be needed to enable judges to act as coroners." —[Official Report, 9 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 181.] 
We are not talking about a proposal that is outside the spirit of English law on coroners. It is fully within that spirit. Nor is the proposal a reflection upon normal


coroners. Most of the work of coroners calls for some medical knowledge. The law does not require a coroner to have medical knowledge, but requires him to be either medically or legally qualified. An increasing number of coroners possess both qualifications.
There can be no doubt that at the lower level of work, medical knowledge can be extremely useful, but the higher level of work is the conduct of what amounts to an important judicial examination. It is experience and capacity of that kind that is required and it is no reflection on normal coroners to say that it is unreasonable to expect them to have that.
It is sometimes suggested that there is no problem because anyone who is dissatisfied with the coroner's inquest and its verdict can always appeal to have the verdict quashed, but that is not the solution. The Deptford fire case is a perfect illustration of this. The inquest was, in certain respects, wrongfully and unlawfully conducted. Nevertheless, when the matter came before the Divisional Court, the Divisional Court decided that those irregularities were not such as to justify the quashing of the verdict. I do not quarrel with that decision. Nevertheless, it leaves deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the inquest if the Divisional Court can say that the coroner conducted it contrary to his legal obligations.
It was obvious before the event that that would be a difficult case. It was also obvious before the event that the Blair Peach case would be a difficult one. It would have been better, without it necessarily affecting the verdict, for the inquiry to have been bumped up to a higher level from the beginning. This is especially so because when a High Court does quash a verdict its freedom, as far as I know, only extends to deciding that another inquest will be heard.
In the normal way of things, the second inquest will be heard by the same coroner who heard the first inquest, but the High Court can order a different coroner, although still a normal coroner, to conduct the second inquest. Therefore, the fact that there is a procedure for going to a higher level of court to quash the coroner's inquest does not fulfil the objective that the new clause is directed towards.
In the new clause I am saying that there are some cases that need qualities which a normal coroner cannot be expected to possess in sufficient abundance for him to conduct the case. In those cases, the choice should be left entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, in the light of whatever representations from the Attorney-General or from the public that are informally made to him, to decide.
I do not think that that would result in thousands of applications to the Lord Chancellor to appoint a special coroner. No doubt there would be applications that were turned down, as well as applications that were accepted, but that is life. If we are to have a two-tier system, as we do already with jury and non-jury inquests, there will be requests that are successful and some that are not. That is not an argument against having what would now be a three-tier system but an argument in favour of discretion being exercised with common sense.
I am sony that all inquiries suggest that the Home Office is not prepared to recommend that the House accept this new clause. In the end, we shall come to it sooner or later, and I hope that the Minister can express more sympathy to the new clause when he replies than he has

done in the conversations that we have had. He has been personally sympathetic, but not sympathetic to the new clause.

Mr. John Tilley: As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wishes to differentiate himself from other hon. Members on the Opposition Bencbes, perhaps I should say that three of the six hon. Members who support the new clause are London Labour Members, and two are distinguished lawyers. I shall try to explain the particular concern that we have about the issue of the inquest into the Deptford, or New Cross, fire.
The House will remember that it was a fire in January of last year in which 13 young black people died, one of whom was a constituent of mine, Patrick Cummings. His mother is only just recovering emotionally and psychologically from that event because it was not merely a private tragedy for the families involved, but something that led to a reaction of considerable and important public significance in the response of the black community, particularly that of South London and my constituency.
These people were angry at the inadequate response, as they saw it, of the rest of society, and particularly the judicial process, to the loss of the lives of those young people. They were upset with the police who after diligent investigations, were unable to sustain a charge of arson and could not produce a credible explanation of how the fire had happened. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, they were upset with the courts and particularly with the inquest, which was clearly inadequate to the needs of the case.
I do not wish to use the advantage of parliamentary privilege to make a personal attack on the coroner. I simply say that I feel that if some of these new clauses had been in operation then it would have been possible for a much more satisfactory inquest to have been held.
This is a debate on the intricacies of law into which I should normally be fearful of treading. However, I feel that I must make this point because those families and that community were deeply disturbed by the lack of response from Parliament. They drew attention to the fact that there was no official message of sympathy while, by contrast, there were many messages of sympathy, from here and elsewhere, for the young people who were victims of a disco fire in Dublin.
If the people concerned with the Deptford fire are saying, and saying strongly, to British society and the British establishment that they are unhappy—the slogan that summed it up was "13 dead—nothing said"—we should in Parliament, late though it is, pay some heed to what happened. We should at least draw the one lesson that if we had a different system of conducting inquests so that in a special case of public interest—a death or a series of deaths—there should be a special procedure to ensure that the public, not only the families and their friends and relatives, should be satisfied that justice has been done.
I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept this new clause, will try to find in the legislation to come—I am sure that we shall have more legislation on this subject in the coming Session—a way of meeting this need, so that we can say that while many parts of society let down that community at lease: one of the lessons has been learnt by Parliament and by the Government.

Mr. Christopher Price: I too wish to allude to the Deptford fire inquest, partly because two of the youngsters who died in the fire were constituents of mine, and Mrs. Ruddock, who owned the house which was gutted, is now a constituent of mine, having been rehoused in my constituency.
However, I start by saying that I think that either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should have attended this debate. They participated in debates in the Committee and I have no complaints about their participation on those occasions. However, if we are to get this right, this is not simply a matter for the Home Office. It is a matter for both the Home Office and the Law Officers. The House is not exactly packed today, but in my view there is an obligation on the Law Officers at least to attend the debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will recall that the responsibility lies with the Home Office for the administration of coroners' courts. Although I was not fortunate enough to be on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, I shall seek to help the House at this stage of the proceedings. It was therefore thought appropriate that a Home Office Minister should respond on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Law Officers, who have been represented already this afternoon, will be here later.

Mr. Price: I am sure that they will. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have the utmost regard for both his administrative expertise and his legal knowledge, and I am sure that in many ways he will stand in. However, there are aspects, particularly the legal aid aspects, of some of the amendments standing in my name which, in my opinion, are far more relevant to the Law Officers than to the Home Office. For that reason alone I wish that they had been here.
In broad terms, I support the principle of new clause 3 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). However, I have tabled another version of it, simply to canvass with the Minister how he would approach the problem. That is new clause 9, in which I suggest that the Government should be under much tighter control by Parliament as to the circumstances in which they should appoint a judge as a special coroner. I am not completely committed to my solution of the problem, however, and I shall listen to the Minister's speech with interest.
I have also tabled new clause 8, concerning the information that is available at coroners' courts. I shall want to say a word on that subject. I have tabled new clause 12, on the subject of the legal aid that is available to those who appear before coroners' courts, and I shall want to say a word on that subject. I have also tabled new clause 16, dealing with the circumstances in which a mandatory jury should be necessary at a coroner's court. I shall say a word on that matter, too.
First, I shall say a word about new clauses 3 and 9, which immediately follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). The new clauses stem directly from the New Cross or the Deptford inquest, as it has been called. I attended many days of that inquest in the council chamber in County Hall across the river. Had my son or daughter died

in that fire, I should have been horrified at the way in which the inquiry into their deaths was conducted. I do not deny that it was a difficult inquest. There were many people in the public gallery, many of whom felt deeply and emotionally about what had happened, about the way in which inquiries had taken place and, in some cases, about the way in which the police had gone about those inquiries. However, we in Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that if a similar tragedy takes place, never again shall we see such a spectacle.
Dr. Davies, the south London coroner, is not an inexperienced coroner. In fact, I think that he is one of the most experienced coroners in Britain. However—I say this in no derogatory sense—it was clearly beyond him. He had never been called upon—and never again would be called upon—to conduct an inquest of that kind. It was clear that for such an occasion we needed a more dignified system, a much more experienced legal mind conducting the case, and a system which enabled all those who were most closely affected—I shall refer to this when I come to the subject of legal aid later—to go away from the inquest with the feeling that justice had been done. None of those conditions applied in that inquest. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, in a sense the High Court made confusion worse confounded by confirming that the coroner's failure to take notes throughout the inquest vitiated that inquest, although not to the degree that another inquest should take place.
I have to say that the bitterness that exists in the borough of Lewisham among the black population against what it sees as a white legal system is deep and will go on for many years. If the Government aim to heal race relations, healing that bitterness should be high on their list of priorities. As we have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State, Home Office, on the Government Front Bench, I wonder whether he will give me now, or perhaps write to me later with, an up-to-date account of the degree to which an inquiry is still in progress into the origin of the New Cross fire, or whether the Metropolitan Police decided to draw a line and cease all further investigations. There have been rumours recently that the police have found a new line of inquiry, and I should appreciate a word from the Minister on that subject.
Therefore, on new clauses 3 and 9 I support what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, and I strongly urge the Minister—I know that he will reject them and, if necessary, vote against them—to take this issue on board as a live issue which should be dealt with, and not simply brush it away. It is not just a matter of the New Cross fire inquest. There is also the Helen Smith inquest, which raised the question of Government involvement with inquests—the Foreign Office is deeply involved in that inquest—their proper role in such a case, and what the law is about inquests involving deaths which take place abroad.
4.30 pm
There has been a series of deaths in custody over which there has been a great deal of uncertainty of late. There was Kevin Gateley in 1974, Liddle Towers in 1976, Blair Peach in 1979, Jimmy Kelly in 1979, Richard Campbell, a black South London youngster who died in the Ashford remand centre in March 1980, Barry Prosser, who died in Winson Green prison in August 1980, Paul Worrell, a young black prisoner who died on 12 January 1982 in Brixton and Terry Jmerdon, a young white man with a


history of schizophrenia who died in his cell in Wandsworth prison on 26 January 1982. There is another worrying case and it seems that it will be heard under the normal inquest rules. It involves Mr. Douglas Coverdale, who died in his cell in Uxbridge police station on Saturday 18 September.
It is a long catalogue, and to the extent that some of these youngsters were black it adds to the bitterness of the New Cross inquest. I am pleased that in the case of Mr. Coverdale there will be an inquest with a jury. I think that that is right. But who is the coroner's officer? He is Police Constable Wilde. Where is Police Constable Wilde stationed? He is stationed at the very police station at which Mr. Coverdale died. He is the officer charged—I am not saying that anything illegal is going on—with a large amount of the conduct of the inquest. Surely that cannot be the right way of proceeding if one wants justice to be done.
Earlier this year the Home Secretary announced new rules for the selection of jurors by a fair random process in criminal cases. I asked him at the time whether that random system would be extended to coroners' jurors. I can see no reason why it should not be so extended, but I am informed that coroners' jurors are not picked in the same way as jurors in criminal cases. They are picked by the antiquated methods which allow the idea to get abroad that they can be fixed. I am not saying that they have been fixed or that they are fixed, but there are those who say that a couple of recent cases in Wales caused disquiet on that ground. However, I am not making that allegation. I am asking the Home Secretary why coroners' jurors cannot be picked at random by the new method which he has announced recently and on which I congratulate him. When the previous Labour Government were in office, many of us were pressing for such reforms. I must acknowledge that we have obtained from a Conservative Government some changes that we failed to obtain from a Labour Government.
New clause 8 is concerned with information. When someone dies in custody, the chief constable of the relevant police authority prepares a report, especially if the death was in circumstances which gave rise to disquiet. The families concerned want to know the details that are set out in these reports. The new clause would make it necessary to make such reports available to any properly interested persons. I agree that I have not defined a "properly interested person". I have deliberately not done so because properly interested people will vary according to the inquest. The amendment that has been tabled by the official Opposition goes to the issue of what constitutes a "properly interested person". I hope that this issue can be sorted out in due course so that a satisfactory definition may be arrived at.
The issue of information at inquests is becoming especially important because of the worry about those who die from industrial diseases, especially asbestosis. There is a feeling among the families of those who have died from asbestosis that there is a conspiracy—I am not saying that there is but this is a genuine feeling among the relatives of those who have died from asbestosis—to prevent them learning the facts. There was a recent article in the New Statesman which detailed some recent inquests where the verdict was "natural causes", yet it was clear in each case that asbestosis was involved. In both cases the availability of information to the inquest was a central issue. Often in these cases the pneumoconiosis medical

panel makes a judgment, but in the case of Richard Wellings, a Rochdale asbestos worker, a panel judgment was not made available to the inquest and the request for a jury at the inquest was turned down.
There is a real worry about these industrial disease cases, especially of asbestosis. When the Minister responds to new clause 8 I hope that he will say as much as he can about the information that should properly be available to the relatives of deceased persons who have been the subject o an inquest so that they do not leave the inquest, as they so frequently do, feeling that it has been a sham.
New clause 12 goes to the issue of legal aid. The relatives of those who died in the New Cross fire have been practically impoverished. They have spent almost every penny that they have trying to get themselves properly represented and to create circumstances in which the facts about the New Cross fire may come to light. New clause 12 would create the right to legal aid for those who appear before special coroners' courts, which are set up by new clause 9. No doubt the Minister will criticise my drafting. I would not defend my drafting for a moment. It is amateur stuff, but the principle is clear. If an incident or death causes genuine public concern and one wants the issues to be properly canvassed at an inquest, it is only fair that the relatives should be represented through legal aid. I know that an inquest is not an adversarial system. There is not one person against another, as in court. It is an inquiry. If no legal aid is available, that simply leads to bitterness and rancour in the minds of those who feel that they should be able to put forward their points of view, yet do not have the resources to do so. Therefore, I should like the Minister to say as much as he can about the availability of legal aid at inquests and about the proposals of the Home Office in that regard.
The final new clause that I have tabled is new clause 16. It reveals an obvious anomaly in the law as it stands. The Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 lists in section 13(2) the circumstances in which an inquest must have a jury. People were worried in 1926. When deaths take place in prison custody, a jury must be summoned to the inquest. However, for some extraordinary reason, when deaths take place in police custody it is not mandatory for a jury to be summoned. Today there is just as much concern at the deaths that take place in police custody as about those that take place in prison custody. With the Birmingham bombers and the Prosser case there is an argument as to whether the death arose because of police or prison officers. My tiny amendment would put the matter right so that it is made clear in future, as in the case of Mr. Douglas Coverdale and the inquest to take place at Uxbridge, that the two are put on an even footing.
I have spoken fix: longer than I intended, but I have tabled quite a few new clauses. I am not in the brightest of moods as we discussed such matters with the Minister of State until 6 o'clock this morning. However, I believe that this group of new clauses is an excellent opportunity for the House to review the legal position of inquests. I hope that the Minister will reply in as favourable a tone as possible to the points that I have made.

Sir Walter Clegg: I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I was not here to hear him move his new clause. I have a great deal of sympathy for all that has been said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)


and for the objects that the new clause wants to achieve. In previous Administration of Justice Bills I have tried to ensure that such amendments would be selected.
I came to the conclusion that some reform was necessary after the inquest into the New Cross fire, which was not only bizarre, but brought the system of justice into disrepute. I have been concerned whether the coroners' procedure for death in custody is right as it is at present conducted because it can be unfair not only to the person who died and his relatives but to those who are accused of causing his death.
Therefore, it is time that the Government sought to amend the procedure for coroners' inquests, especially when there is bound to be great public interest when the inquest arises, as after the New Cross fire and deaths in custody. It is proper that a High Court judge, with all his experience, should be in charge of the inquiry, which an inquest is; it is not a trial. With those few words, I should like to express my general support for the theme that has been deployed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House is in debt to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for focusing our attention on this problem. I hope that he will accept that I have done my best to ensure that he receives due recognition for his part in this matter. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too sensitive. On this question we were all thinking along the same lines.
We were grateful for the intervention by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), who has shown that both sides of the House have been considering the matter. If ever there is bickering as to whether it was the Labour Party or the Social Democratic Party which first thought of a good idea, it will not come from the Labour Party. We have more important matters on which to concentrate.
It is true that, even before some of the recent cases that have been mentioned—the Deptford case, the Blair Peach case, the Liddle Towers case and the Barry Prosser case—there were problems with coroners' inquests which required attention. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say that I suspect that, while the problems took an undramatic form, there were those who thought that they could be neglected and perhaps they would go away.
I hope that the Minister of State will not think from anything that is said in the debate that his presence is unwelcome. We are pleased to see him. We know that he will do his best to enlighten the House, but experience shows that a Home Office presence does not usually mean such a positive response as there would be if a Law Officer were present. But it is only fair to say that I am aware that the Solicitor-General has had to absent himself for other reasons, and his absence is not due to any lack of interest in what we are discussing.
In Committee, the Solicitor-General said that where consultations were necessary, the more widely we defined the problems, the longer the consultations would take. But it has already become clear that the debate cannot take place in a vacuum. There are many questions relating to coroners' inquests that fall to be considered. Many fall to be considered in this debate.
In 1965, a report by a sub-committee of the private practice committee of the British Medical Association expressed concern that causes of death were not always ascertained with sufficient accuracy. It suggested that in consequence homicides might go undetected. In consequence of the report, the then Home Secretary appointed a committee chaired by Mr. Norman Brodrick, QC. The committee concluded that the BMA report had been "unduly alarmist", but it produced a careful and comprehensive report in November 1971, which made 114 recommendations.
The fact that the committee took six years before it reported indicates the care that it devoted to the matter, and its assessment of the difficulties of the subject. Few of its recommendations have been implemented. The committee traced the history of the coroner's office from its inception in 1194 when its function was primarily to watch over the Crown's financial interests, to inquire into unexplained deaths and to ensure that a communal fine was levied on the locality when a Norman was murdered. It did not matter so much if a Saxon were murdered.
The principal purpose of the inquest continued to be the investigation of possible criminal responsibility for death until the establishment of police forces and the employment of criminal investigation techniques made that function of the coroner obsolete. The committee concluded that the inquest could still perform a function, but that it was a different one—to furnish accurate records of the causes of deaths to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and to identify hazards to health and safety to ensure that death from such cause did not recur. While that remained the function, the present arrangements worked adequately, but the committee still found it possible to make 114 recommendations for improvement.
Recently, the inquest appears to have acquired shades of its former function of investigating criminal responsibility for death. That has arisen in a number of cases where a strong body of public opinion has expressed disquiet about the way in which the police investigation was carried out. That was the burden of many of the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). That does not necessarily imply any reflection on the police. I suggest not that the public disquiet was necessarily justified; only that in a number of recent cases that disquiet existed. There were those who, rightly or wrongly, felt that the police had not been assiduous in bringing to justice those criminally responsible for the deaths. Because of that anxiety, justified or not, the inquest provided a method of pursuing lines of inquiry which might have led to information about criminal responsibility.
We have shades of the original "watchdog" as opposed to the "Brodrick" function recurring. It is a function that is likely to apply to cases which attract widespread public attention and where feelings run high. A coroner who may admirably perform the "Brodrick" function and who may possess the large measure of expertise required to investigate medical causes of death and identify hazards to health, may not possess the qualities necessary to conduct the more dramatic type of tribunal where distinguished counsel take part in what is virtually—although I agree not in form—an adversarial combat where tempers run high, where there may be demonstrations and where most of us would shrink from having to conduct such an inquest.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that we are not discussing the distinction between important and unimportant deaths. If that is the objection attributed to the Coroners' Society of England and Wales, it is based on a misconception. There is a clear distinction—it exists already, whether we like it or not—between inquests with the "Brodrick" function and those with the "watchdog" function. They call for different qualities and expertise. I support the proposals of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
For the same reasons, I believe that the coroner should have access to all the known facts—as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West in new clause 8—where the inquest is likely to fulfill the "watchdog" function. The inquest cannot investigate whether criminal inquiries have been pursued energetically unless it knows what information was available to those who conducted the inquiries. So I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West.
The Brodrick committee made recommendations on the assumption that the function of the inquest was to identify the cause of death and hazards to health and safety. If the committee had envisaged that the inquest should take on a "watchdog" function, its list of recommendations might have been longer. But much of that report would repay closer study than it seems to have received. The Government would do well to consider paragraph 16.57, which deals with the right to be present at an inquest, to be represented and to question witnesses. That recommendation is embodied in new clause 14.
The present position is governed by the Coroners' Rules 1953 which are made by statutory instrument under a power contained in section 26 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926. The relevant parts of rule 16(1) provide:
Without prejudice to any enactment with regard to the examination of witnesses at an inquest, any person who in the opinion of the coroner is a properly interested person shall be entitled to examine any witness at an inquest either in person or by counsel or solicitor.
One of the two provisos states:
The coroner shall disallow any question which in his opinion is not relevant or is otherwise not a proper question.
No one would quarrel with that. It is not proposed that anyone should be allowed to ask irrelevant or improper questions.
The Brodrick committee pointed to the uncertainty in that formula, because, until the inquest begins, no one can know whether the coroner will take the view that he or she is a properly interested person permitted to be present and to ask questions.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said about the need to know in advance who is and is not a properly interested person. Two competent coroners, both acting in good faith, may arrive at different conclusions. It was for that reason that the Brodrick committee recommended that certain categories of people should have an absolute right to be present and to ask questions either themselves or through their legal representatives. That recommendation has never been implemented, although it has been referred to occasionally in public debate. It was repeated in the publication "Law Reform Now", which was initiated in 1965 by the Society of Labour Lawyers. The Opposition have sought to reproduce it in new clause 14. The categories set out in that new clause are intended to reproduce the categories set out

in the Brodrick report, subject to those changes necessary for drafting purposes. I am sure that the new clause will not come as a complete surprise to the Minister, because I ventilated it in Committee.
I suggested also that it followed that those who were entitled to attend and be represented at an inquest should have access to legal aid. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West for having taken up that suggestion. There is such a power already—as he has recognized—in schedule 1 to the Legal Aid Act 1974. Technically, we do not need legislation for that power to be implemented. We want an undertaking from the Government that the importance of legal aid in that context will be recognised so that we may know that that power will be implemented.
Those who have an interest in inquests—the next-of-kin of the deceased, who have a direct financial interest in the outcome or who may be criticised publicly for the events leading up to the death—are entitled to be present, to ask questions and to De adequately advised and represented. That is true where the inquiry may be adversarial in substance if not in form. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West that where the function is primarily to confirm or allay public anxiety, that can be done only if there is the verdict of a jury. That is the way to confirm or set at rest public anxieties.
5 pm
Even if there had never been the Deptford, Blair Peach or Liddle Towers inquests, there would have been a strong case for bringing the Brodrick report down from the shelf. I hope that the Minister can tell us what the Home Office proposes to do about the report. After the inquests we are in a different position. They open up a new epoch in the history of coroners' inquests, and it is one in which new thinking is necessary. I hope that, having had an opportunity to consider these matters, at least since the Committee stage, :he Home Office will tell us the state of its thinking.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I wish to make a few brief observations following those that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made, not in relation to the exceptional cases to which reference has been made but to the generality of coroners' inquests and in particular to new clauses 12 to 14, which are enmeshed.
I have appeared on a number of occasions at coroners' courts, largely acting without charge. There is no satisfactory way in. which a person who is without means can be properly represented unless a solicitor is prepared to undertake that task. That is grotesquely unfair. As my right hon. and learned Friend says, it is often vitally important that proper representation should be afforded to such persons, particularly when there is no equality of representation otherwise. In the vast majority of cases involving public authorities or substantial private interests those bodies are represented, yet there is no effective provision for others who have a direct interest to be represented. That is a serious injustice. I, too, should like to know why paragraph 4 of part I of schedule 1 to the 1974 Act has not been activated. That is quite apart from the question of special interests.
The Minister may say that there is provision for relatively poor people and that they can obtain advice under the green form scheme preparatory to the inquest, but that would be a poor reply. As a matter of practice it


does not work. The strength of my right hon. and learned Friend's submission is clear, particularly in regard to new clause 14. Legal aid is an essential for proper and fair representation to ensure that justice is done.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): This has been an interesting and serious debate. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
I hope that it will not be thought to be introducing an inappropriately flippant tone if I say that I heard with sympathy the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) say that he had often appeared at coroner's courts without charge. My first brief was at a coroner's inquest and I have yet to be paid the fee. He as a distinguished solicitor will hear that with considerable sympathy.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that I did not instruct him!

Mr. Mayhew: The effect of new clause 16 is to extend the circumstances in which a coroner is required by statute to summon a jury so as to include all cases where it appears to the coroner, either before he proceeds to hold an inquest or in the course of an inquest done without a jury, that there is reason to suspect that death occurred while the deceased was in police custody or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported exercise of his duty.
The existing law is contained in the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926, section 13(2), which provides that a coroner shall summon a jury if it appears to him
either before he proceeds to hold an inquest or in the course of an inquest begun without a jury, that there is reason to suspect…that the death occurred
in certain circumstances that are specified.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already stated that he accepts the principle recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on deaths in police custody that inquests should be held with a jury on all deaths occurring in custody. He stated that this and certain other matters would require legislation in due course.
I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said in support of new clause 16 and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg). In advice to coroners, which originated from the Home Secretary in 1969 but which was renewed by my right hon. Friend last year, the Home Secretary has not only advised coroners that it is desirable for an inquest to be held in every case of a person dying while in legal custody but has expressed the hope that such an inquest will always be with a jury whenever the death of a person in legal custody, including police custody, is reported to a coroner. We have no reason to suppose that that advice is not followed by coroners. The first part of the amendment therefore represents my right hon. Friend's stated policy.
The circumstances of deaths referred to in the second part also, in our judgment, without prejudice to the possibility of subsequent legislation, warrant an extension of the duty imposed by section 13(2) of the Act. I am accordingly able to advise the House to accept new clause 16.
I should like to speak to new clauses 3 and 9 together in the first instance and then move more particularly to a

consideration of new clause 3 and then new clause 9. Each provides power for a High Court judge to act as a coroner in certain circumstances. New clause 3 would also extend that power to circuit judges.
New clause 3 provides that the circumstance in which the power may be exercised is merely the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of such a judge as a special coroner. New clause 9, however, provides that an inquest shall be held by a High Court judge where it concerns deaths in police custody, deaths in prison establishments, multiple deaths of five or more persons and deaths of persons at their place of work. It further provides that the inquest shall be held by a High Court judge in any other circumstances where this appears appropriate to the Secretary of State. It will at once be seen that the ambit of new clause 9 is far wider than that of new clause 3.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he envisaged the clause being applied perhaps to one case every 10 years. Today, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would be applied to perhaps four or five cases a year—

Mr. George Cunningham: In a decade.

Mr. Mayhew: —in a decade. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman evisages it as a rare circumstance in which his provision would be appropriately used. In 1980, however, new clause 9 would have applied to 63 deaths in police custody, 65 in prison establishments and 293 at the place of work, making a total of 421. These include deaths arising from natural causes because they are caught by the clause.
I have certain general points to make about the employment of judges, High Court or circuit, in the role of coroner which I hope I can most usefully advance when I discuss new clause 3. They apply equally to new clause 9. For the moment, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West will, I think, accept that I believe it is enough to point to the unacceptably enormous additional demands that would be made on the High Court bench by new clause 9 to say nothing of the wastefulness of employing these judges to investigate deaths by natural causes or the arbitrariness of the threshold of five for multiple deaths. I should like to say here in parenthesis that this would lead to the recent bomb outrage in Hyde Park qualifying but the contemporary bomb outrage in Regent's Park not qualifying. It is enough for me to point only to those instances, I believe, to explain adequately why the Government cannot accept new clause 9.
I turn now particularly to new clause 3. I must tell the House that I cannot advise its acceptance. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who has been kind enough to come to see me on at least two occasions to discuss these matters, knows the nature of my response which will therefore come as no surprise. I understand the thinking and the anxiety that has prompted the hon. Gentleman to table the clause. Broadly, it may be described along the lines that inquests can be expected occasionally to become necessary, the conduct of which may be expected to be so difficult, through political or other special connotations, that an ordinary coroner may be expected not to be up to the job and where a High Court judge or a Crown court judge would be better able to cope.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others have referred specifically to the Deptford fire inquest. I have no desire today to speak in any way that


might be thought to be commenting on any aspect of that tragic occurrence—the Deptford fire or the inquest that took place into those deaths—save only to say that, by the process of judicial review that is open to all who have an interest in the result of an inquest, the matter came before the Divisional Court. It is right to remind the House that the application to quash the verdict was rejected and that the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment, said of the coroner:
Despite the difficulties facing him, this coroner did manage, against the odds, to perform his duties with commendable skill, forbearance and tact.
and added later:
such irregularities as there were can have had no impact upon the course of the inquiry".
5.15 pm
I pay tribute, like others, including the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, to the general excellence of the work done by Her Majesty's coroners in carrying out what is often a thankless task. The Government take the view that such difficulties as have arisen in special cases are not sufficient to warrant the introduction of special coroners, particularly bearing in mind the provisions that exist for the setting aside of a verdict by the High Court by means either of a judicial review or with the authority of the Attorney-General under the powers conferred by section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887.
Even if the facts warranted the introduction of a system of special coroners, the Government do not think that a system of the kind proposed would be appropriate. It is true that a High Court judge has a jurisdiction as a coroner by virtue of his office. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated in Committee that he was in favour of looking into their powers to sit as coroners by virtue of their office but he did not advocate new legislation to enable them to do so as this new clause would provide. It is of interest to note that a High Court judge's jurisdiction as a coroner is not controlled by the Coroners Acts nor by the rules of procedure which stem from the Coroners Acts. We believe that the scheme proposed by new clause 3—

Mr. George Cunningham: The Solicitor-General said in Standing Committee that the Government would look into the question of how that general, ungeographically defined jurisdiction could be brought into force. Have inquiries reached the point where the Government are clear in their mind as to whether, and if so how, that jurisdiction could be initiated to be exercised?

Mr. Mayhew: It is not clear how a High Court judge could exercise or be brought to exercise that jurisdiction. Nor is there any record of which I am aware of his having done so. What is clear is that if he was to exercise that jurisdiction as a coroner, he would not be bound by the rules or be subject to the duties of coroners who sit in the ordinary way under the authority conferred on them by the Coroners Acts. That in itself might well give rise to anomalous conflicts. The High Court judge, unfettered by any statutory obligations, would be sitting in pursuance of common law right, whereas the coroner for the district would continue to have the duties imposed upon him by statute. These would presumably run in a rather unhappy tandem.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not think that that really answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The Solicitor-General gave a pledge in Committee that the Government would look into the matter—no more than that. Has that process started? Is it in its middle? Has it ended? Have the Government any intention of making a firm statement about their view beyond the statement that the Minister is now making?

Mr. Mayhew: The process has not only started. It has reached the conclusion that I have endeavoured to describe—that it is not clear how a High Court judge could be brought to exercise that jurisdiction which he undoubtedly has. That is as far as we have been able to proceed.

Mr. George Cunningham: Are the Government clear at least on this specific question? If a case goes up to the Divisional Court to quash the verdict and the Divisional Court does so, it is normal practice for it to nominate a coroner to hear the new inquest. If a High Court judge were nominated, would that activate his coronery powers and jurisdiction?

Mr. Mayhew: We do not know for certain the answer to that question. One of the reasons why we do not know is that we have not had the advantage of precedent, so the matter is uncertain. I am not saying that this could not be done: I am saying that it is uncertain. The House will wish to take well into account the fact that a High Court judge, even if nominated in that way, would sit with powers deriving not from the statute, which would not apply to him, but from common law.
I think that it will help the House if I give the principal reasons why I do not believe that the scheme proposed! in new clause 3 would be satisfactory. First, however, I shall deal with some of the points raised in the debate.
I accept the comment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that coroners have an enormous range of work—vertically, as he puts it. I agree that coroners are territorially selected and that it is, as he put it, within the spirit of the English legal! system that within certain categories of judicial officer a measure of selection can be made. I take the hon. Gentleman's point in that respect. I noted particularly his remark that nothing in his speech constituted any reflection on coroners.
I mention these points to demonstrate that I am not in conflict with the basis on which the hon. Gentleman founds his policy, but for reasons that I shall explain I believe that the disadvantages inherent in his scheme are not warranted by the scale or nature of the problem that he puts forward as its justification.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I appreciate the strength of my hon. and learned Friend's objections to new clause 9, proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), as I imagine that most hon. Members do, but what on earth is there to prevent a power from being given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint a special coroner in any circumstance in which he considers it in the public interest to do so? It would not be necessary to be specific and my hon. and learned Friend would not have to answer the various specific requirements laid down in new clause 9, but it seems a matter of eminent common sense, for which there must be an eminent amount of precedent, that there are matters in which, in the public interest, a certain course of action needs to be taken.. Where there is or may be


public disquiet, as in some recent inquests there has been profound dissatisfaction among certain elements of the public, why cannot a general power be given to the Lord Chancellor to say that in his judgment it is a special situation requiring a special case?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Technically, of course, there is no reason why Parliament could not confer such a power on the Lord Chancellor. I must tell the House, however, that the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary, has made it clear that he is strongly opposed to involving either High Court or circuit judges in controversial inquests or—this relates specifically to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—to becoming involved himself in the decision as to which cases should be singled out for special procedure. In his view, such a decision would involve a conflict between his judicial and his administrative functions. I need hardly say that he is extremely unwilling to add to the burdens of an already hard pressed judiciary. If I may say so, the problem is not what might prevent the Lord Chancellor from having such a power. The difficulty lies in determining what criteria should guide his discretion.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West says in new clause 3 that
the Lord Chancellor may appoint".
He sets out no guidelines or fetter upon the Lord Chancellor's discretion. I believe that that could foreseeably lead to great pressure on a Lord Chancellor, in the circumstances of succeeding deaths, to appoint a special coroner on the basis that the matter will give rise to a particular public interest because it is an especially important case. If I may respectfully say so, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lord Chancellor's strong reluctance to become saddled with a discretion of that nature in those circumstances.
I shall deal briefly with other objections, but I wish first to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West when he referred to the black community in Lewisham feeling bitter about what it regards as a white legal system. I believe that he made that comment in the context of the Deptford fire inquest in particular. As I have said, I make no comment whatever on that inquest or its conduct. I must, however, take up the comment that it is a white legal system, and a biased one, as the hon. Gentleman implied. Only in the last few weeks, we have seen and welcomed the appointment of a Sikh circuit judge and we have black barristers and black solicitors. What matters is not the colour of those who man our legal system but how they conduct their business and discharge their duties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was still an inquiry in process as to the origin of the New Cross fire. I am informed that the police are still pursuing inquiries in the case and that they are, for example, continuing to conduct interviews. The case is not closed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the involvement of Government in connection with the Helen Smith inquest. If I understood him correctly, he spoke of there being anxiety as to the extent to which Government are now involved with inquests. It is precisely to avoid contentious involvement of Ministers in inquests that we are unable to accept either new clause 3 or new clause 9.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether coroners' juries could not be picked in the same way as juries in any other case. It is our intention that coroners' juries should be picked in the same way as they are picked for other courts, but that requires substantive legislation to apply to coroners' jurors the same qualifications and disqualifications as apply to others. At present, the Juries Act 1974 does not apply to coroners' juries.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West referred to information available to coroners. He said that families wanted to know the details of the information—for example, in cases of death by asbestosis. Following an inquest, properly interested persons are entitled to request copies of post mortem reports, notes of evidence and any documents put in evidence. The inquest cannot determine matters of civil liability, which must be proved in the appropriate court.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that after protracted inquests the coroners' notes are expensive to procure and are often beyond the means of individuals with a direct interest?

Mr. Mayhew: I accept that point. However, if there appears to be a prima facie case for a claim for damages for civil liability, legal aid is available which extends to obtaining copies of the coroner's notes. I agree that that is not immediately available as the case has to be set on foot first.
I return belatedly to the principal new clauses, Nos. 3 and 9—

Mr. Price: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: I have given way a great deal, and we want to get on with the business.

Mr. Price: When the Minister said that it was the Government's intention to change the system of coroners' juries, did he mean that the Government intended to introduce legislation?

Mr. Mayhew: We intend that coroners' juries should be selected in the same way as jurors in other courts. That requires main legislation. We hope to introduce appropriate legislation, but I cannot promise an early prospect of it.
First, there is a real danger that the inquest procedure, which is adapted to its purely fact-finding purpose, would become adversarial in nature rather than inquisitorial, and would take on the overtones of a trial, if such a structure were adopted. I listened to the interesting point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who said that inquests were returning to their early function of inquiring into criminal responsibility. He will know that it is no part of a coroner's inquest to determine criminal liability. It is a matter of great anxiety that, in one or two cases, coroners' inquests have been conducted on an adversarial basis by those taking part in them. It would be a matter of deep anxiety if that were to continue, still less to be encouraged.
Secondly, it would be impossible to define satisfactorily the sort of case to which the proposed arrangements would apply. That would mean that a large number of those with an interest in those matters would press the Lord Chancellor, or the Home Secretary in the case of new


clause 9, for the claims of their case to be treated specially and to be heard by a special coroner. That would lead to an unsatisfactory and unstable position.
Thirdly, the administrative duties carried out by a coroner from an early stage in each case relating to the holding of the inquest, and, during the inquest itself, for eliciting information from witnesses, are not expected of judges in the exercise of their judicial role. I have already referred to the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor to the proposal, and I need not repeat it.
The Brodrick committee, which was set up in 1965 and scrutinised all aspects of the coroners' system before reporting in November 1971, recommended the re-organisation of that system on more flexible lines, with a national system of coroners appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The committee recommended that
if at some future stage it were desired to deploy coroners more flexibly than by static jurisdictions, eg by creating panels of coroners for special inquiries whenever they might occur, or by giving hard-pressed coroners temporary re-inforcement from other areas, these possibilities should not be frustrated.
The Government's mind is not closed to the possibilities. I envisage substantial attraction in having a regional structure that would enable the person presiding at regional level to appoint a regional coroner, or a coroner from other than the immediate territorial district where death took place or the body was found, to exercise jurisdiction in the inquest. That may represent a way forward that we should explore.
I must make it clear that the Government are not committed to legislation along the lines suggested by Brodrick, and it would not be possible to introduce such legislation in this Parliament. However, such problems as have arisen might best be dealt with by something of that sort.

Mr. Lawrence: Would not the circumstances in which such regional coronership panels were allocated be as intractable a problem as that which the Minister faced with regard to the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a High Court judge? Yet he is mildly in favour of the former but opposed to the latter on precisely the same grounds.

Mr. Mayhew: That suggestion would be within the existing coroner system, which is a different matter. It would not involve a member of the Executive, that is a Minister in the Government. That is an important distinction.
I turn briefly to new clause 8. One of the perils of grouping together a large number of new clauses is that they call for a lengthy reply. There is, of course, no question of the police failing to disclose to a coroner a report prepared at his instance for the purposes of an inquest. I know of no instance where the police have failed or refused to supply a coroner with a report prepared for other purposes. The only basis on which I can envisage that they might do so would be on the grounds that a report prepared for other purposes was likely to be disclosed to third parties, which is, of course, precisely what subsection (2) of the new clause seeks to achieve.
The nub of the question is whether police reports should automatically be disclosed to parties other than the coroner. In this connection it is important to examine the nature of police reports and their use. A police report is a summary of the information which has emerged from an investigation, together with expressions of opinion as to the weight to be accorded to it, the veracity, character and

reliability of witnesses and so on. In practice they will enable the coroner to consider what evidence he should call at the inquest. They are not evidence in themselves and would not be offered as such in criminal proceedings. New clause 8 would, however, have it that it is always right and in the public interest to disclose such reports to all interested parties if requested.
The Government cannot support that provision, and we know from a number of judgments that the courts do not support it either. For example, the coroner often has to deal with deaths in which, at first, suspicion falls on a member of the family. Such cases are investigated with the greatest discretion and, if the facts disprove that suspicion, there is no need for the person concerned to know that they were ever suspected.
In other cases, one member of a family may have made accusations against other members. Again, great distress could be caused by disseminating such accusations. II is essential that the coroner should retain a discretion in divulging such matters, although recording and investigating them is a proper function of the police.
There are various procedures whereby parties to criminal or civil proceedings, as well as inquests and tribunals, may seek to have documents disclosed. It is, however, for those responsible for such documents and for the courts where appropriate, to exercise discretion whether disclosure should be made. I do not consider that disclosure should ever be automatic. I am afraid that I have, therefore, to give a discouraging response to that new clause.
New clause 12 deals with legal aid for special coroners' proceedings. That depends upon there being special coroners. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked why paragraph 4 of the appropriate schedule of the Legal Aid Act had not been implemented. That permits legal aid for coroners' inquests. It has not been implemented for the same reason as it was not implemented by the Opposition when they were in Government—financial resources are not available. It can be applied to coroners' inquests only at the expense of other proceedings in which legal aid is available.
We have increased the scope of legal aid. We recently announced our intention to extend assistance by way of representation to the mental health review tribunals. The Lord Chancellor has announced legal aid for parents in care proceedings, which is to be introduced shortly. There will be legal aid for the proposed new bail applications to the Crown court and mandatory legal aid for young offenders on each occasion that they are subject to a custodial sentence. It is a matter of priorities, and those are the priorities that we put first.
As to new clause 14, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has uncharacteristically omitted to notice that the rights that he seeks are already conferred under rule 4 of the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 1980, under which the following persons have had the right to appear at a coroner's inquest, either in person or through a solicitor or counsel:
a parent, child, spouse and any personal representative of the deceased; any beneficiary of a policy of insurance issued on the life of the deceased; the insurer who issued such a policy of insurance; any person whose act or omission or that of his agent or servant may in the opinion of the coroner have caused or contributed to, the death of the deceased; any person appointed by a trade union to which the deceased at the time of his death belonged, if the death of the deceased may have been caused by an injury received in the course of his employment or by an


industrial disease; an inspector appointed under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974, … ; the chief officer of police",
and so on.
What is sought in new clause 14 is already available under those rules and a little more besides, because a person appointed by a trade union may be heard. I believe that those categories are wide enough to cover the appearance of any person with a legitimate interest. The rule makes the coroner's court unique in allowing relatives of the deceased and certain other persons affected by the death to appear to be represented and to examine witnesses. That is not the case in other courts. Relatives of the deceased are not represented at a trial for homicide in the criminal courts, nor am I aware of any other court at which such a wide spectrum of interested persons is entitled to appear. I believe that the provisions of the new clause are met, and I hope that it will be withdrawn.
I apologise for speaking so long, but I have given way on many occasions. We have been discussing extremely interesting and connected matters. I am glad to accept new clause 16. I hope that I have been able to establish that there are sound and proper reasons, not intransigent ones, for not accepting the other new clauses.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The whole House is grateful to the Minister of State for the careful and considered manner in which he has replied to the debate. I am sure that both sides of the House are grateful to him for his two concessions.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be delighted to learn that I share one thing in common with him. The first brief that I, too, received was a watching brief at a coroner's inquest. Like him, I have not yet been paid—I suspect for the worst possible reason. Indeed, it is rumoured that the solicitor considered that the fee of two guineas was gross overpayment in my case as it was my first brief. However, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I live in hope.
The debate has shown that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the inquest system as it operates in a limited number of cases. As of necessity, these are serious cases which by their nature cause anxiety to the public, I fear that that dissatisfaction will grow and that more controversial cases will arise unless some of the anomalies that have been highlighted are dealt with.
I am slightly disappointed at the Minister's response to new clause 3, which is the heart of this debate. As in Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) moved the new clause in a considered and modest way. He conceded—I think that this is beyond dispute—that the Lord Chancellor would exercise his discretion to appoint a coroner in a limited number of cases. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two or three in a decade.
The Minister's argument was unconvincing. He suggested that this would be an added strain on judicial resources. I do not think that it will add very much to the burdens of the High Court. I do not believe that it will involve much extra work and I am sure that High Court judges will be well able to deal with these cases.
5.45 pm
The argument in favour of High Court judges acting as special coroners in serious and emotionally charged cases,

where the relatives of the deceased feel strongly, and are sometimes even bitter, is the same as the argument in favour of High Court judges hearing serious and emotionally charged criminal cases. High Court judges are selected to hear those cases because, by their training, they are capable of exercising sensitive and firm control. Because of their expertise and training, they usually do so very well. The appointment of High Court judges to hear such cases is no reflection on the overwhelming number of circuit judges, who, in the majority of cases, are more than capable of hearing a criminal case and trying it very well indeed.
I believe that the same principle should apply to an inquest which, by its very nature, arouses strong feelings, not only among relatives, but among the public as well. Someone whose training enables him to exercise sensitive, careful and firm handling of a case should in a limited number of cases be appointed to preside over such inquests.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the appointment of a High Court judge might well encourage the adversarial system to operate more than it does at present. I take the opposite view. Because a High Court judge is able to exercise firm and experienced control, I believe that he would be able to limit the possibilities of the adversarial system applying in inappropriate cases.

Mr. Lawrence: The reason why High Court judges are appointed to try appropriate cases, and why we are asking that the same should apply to inquests, is that it greatly increases, not the efficiency of the proceedings, but public confidence in the way in which the proceedings are conducted and in the conclusion that is arrived at. The real argument for appointing a High Court or circuit judge for inquests arose out of the recent number of inquests where that public confidence was clearly lacking. The difference between that and the sort of public confidence that emerged when Lord Scarman began his inquiry was so blatant that in some circumstances it must be in the public interest for similar rules to apply. Is that not the real point?

Mr. Davidson: I will not say that it is the real point, although it is a strong point and one to which I was about to come, but since the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the point so fully and so well, and since, clearly, I cannot improve upon it, I shall not attempt to embellish it. Of course the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. Of course the public will have more confidence in the proceedings when they see the careful, skilful and sensitive handling of someone such as Lord Scarman. I do not need to add to that.
In all the circumstances, anyone reading this debate and the Minister's reply will feel that there is no insuperable obstacle, or no real obstacle, to the Government's implementing the sensible and modest proposals outlined by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in new clause 3. It is imperative that those who are affected by the judical system, at whatever level must feel that it operates fairly and in their interests, and that it is open and conceals nothing. This is particularly so in an inquest, for the most obvious reason. The relatives feel particularly aggrieved, and frequently feel bewildered. They are shocked, grieving and frequently bitter. Not only are they bitter, as anyone would feel over the death of a relative, but, because the person concerned is dead, there is no one who can give an eye witness account of what happened.


Therefore, an inquest must, above all, be seen to be open and conducted in a fair manner. That is all that the hon. Gentleman is asking for in the new clause.
The House would not expect me to deal at any great length with new clause 14. I am sure that we are grateful to the Minister for what he said on that. While I appreciate that the Minister is concerned that inquests should not be a source of dissatisfaction to the public, and a source of grievance to the relatives, I believe that I am expressing the view of most Members of the House when I say that we are disappointed that he could not be a little more forthcoming in an otherwise sensible reply.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have no intention of going over the whole ground again. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) about the likelihood that the high-level conduct of an inquest would reduce the adversarial content and nature of the occasion rather than increase it. The Minister of State must have noticed the number of demands in recent years for what might be called extra-system inquiries. Even where those inquiries are conducted either under the Police Act or the 1923 legislation, they are in a sense outside the system. Part of the reason for the demand for such non-system inquiries is the lack of some special facility within the system of the type that is advocated in new clause 3.
As for the reluctance of the Lord Chancellor to take on the burden of distinguishing between those cases which would be subject to the new procedure and those subject to the old, I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor will just have to put up with it. He does exercise something like that discretion at the moment in many cases. The extra burden on the Lord Chancellor is a price worth paying for the advantages that have been recommended. Discretion is already exercised on whether an inquest is conducted with a jury or without one.
What has clearly come out of the debate is that 11 years is too long for the House to get down to introducing fairly comprehensive legislation about coroners' courts. The Minister conceded in a recent parliamentary answer that there were about 25 recommendations in the Brodrick report on which no action had been taken and no position taken by the Home Office. It really is time that the Home Office decided what it wants to happen on those various recommendations, even if there is not time in the next Session or the following one to bring in legislation.
This is not a bad report. In fact, it is a good report. We cannot go on putting things on the shelf. The Home Office should now regard the 11-year-old Brodrick report as if it were a Select Committee report which came out last month. The Home Office should rapidly ensure that it brings forward its response, in some form or other, to these various recommendations and the other points that have come up since, so that when the time comes and there is an opportunity to pass legislation, it will at least know what it wants to do.
I welcome the little bit of hope that the Minister brought in at the end of his speech, and which he has been good enough to discuss with me, about the possibility of a regional hierarchy for coroners, but I am extremely doubtful about the desirability and workability of it in preference to what I am proposing. Coroners' courts, although not adversarial in nature and not now concerned with criminal responsibility, are part of the quasi-judicial system. I find it very hard to fit into that pattern a regional

structure of coroners with a boss coroner for the North-Western region or the South-Eastern region. The Home Office must further clarify its position on the matter.
It is clear from the debate that we cannot stay where we are. Representatives of three different parties have expressed grave concern about the present position. I do not propose to call for a vote on new clause 3 because inquiries indicate that there is no possibility of carrying it. Therefore, there is no point in wasting time. That should not be taken as an indication that there is not grave concern on both sides of the House. The Home Office cannot continue, as it has under successive Administrations over the past 11 years, simply to do nothing about this.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCUMENTS

'The obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of a document shall not extend to the disclosure of any part of the contents which have been read aloud in open court in any proceedings for the purpose only of assisting any person to report or comment upon those proceedings'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is what has become known as the Harriet Harman clause. The House is familiar with the story. I do not propose to embark on a disquisition on the criticisms which have been made of Ms Harman personally, or on a refutation of those criticisms, which has been fully elaborated, or to repeat the testimonies which have been given in the House by those who know Ms Harman as to her personal integrity. I hope that within the next few weeks she will be here in the Chamber to speak for herself. Nor do I propose to set out at length the issue of principle. We discussed it Airing the debate on the Contempt of Court Bill last year. It was discussed in another place during the course of debates on the Administration of Justice Bill and daring our debates in Committee. I shall try to formulate it briefly, and I hope fairly, although I appreciate that brevity inevitably means leaving out considerations which fairness might otherwise enjoin.
We begin with two rules. Each is a wholly admirable rule made for the best of reasons. The problem arises when they come into conflict. The first is that legal proceedings in Britain take place in public. Anyone who hears them can relay what has taken place to all and sundry. The public know how our legal system operates. No one is dispatched after a hearing in a locked committee room before a cabal. A person's fate is decided openly in the healthy light of day. If a trial is conducted improperly, the shortcomings are known and they can be rectified. If the system itself is imperfect, the public are aware of it and can demand an improvement.
Where there are overriding reasons for not making the proceedings public they may be held in camera, but that is wholly exceptional, and if it were to happen frequently it would no doubt give rise to proper complaints. It was said in Committee that when something is said in court it is in the public domain. Indeed, to facilitate that rule, there is qualified privilege from defamation proceedings for a fair and accurate report of 'what has been said in court. That is one rule.
6 pm
The other rule relates to the process of discovery. In order that justice may be done, the law requires that in a civil action each party shall disclose every document in his possession which is relevant to an issue in the case. The other party is entitled to see it and, where it bears on the subject matter, to refer to it in the course of the proceedings. Again, there are exceptions, but they are clearly formulated, and if a specific document is to be excepted, it has to be shown that it falls within one of those exceptions. But because the documents have been disclosed solely for the purpose of the proceedings, the other party must use them solely for that purpose. They may contain information which is highly confidential. They may be highly embarrassing to the person who produced them.
Disclosure exists in the interests of justice and it ought not to be taken further than is required by the interests of justice. Those are the two rules, both of them unexceptional. What happens when they conflict?
Let us suppose that a document disclosed upon discovery for the purpose of a particular case is read aloud in open court in the course of those proceedings. There are several solutions which we might adopt. We might say that a document shall never be read aloud in court if any party objects; it shall be read silently and every person who requires a copy for the purpose of the proceedings shall be provided with a copy. Sometimes documents are read silently.
We might say that when a document is produced on discovery, even if it is read aloud in open court, no one shall be entitled to repeat its contents. We might say that when a document is read aloud it becomes like anything else that is said in open court—it may be repeated by anybody. The document, or a copy of it, is simply like a shorthand note of what has been said in court.
We might say—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) suggested in Committee—that we should ensure that a journalist who wished to use a tape recorder while a document was being read out had a clear right to do so, and that he should then be permitted to publish whatever is on his tape recording.
There would be arguments for any of those solutions. We could not have all of them, because they are mutually inconsistent, but there would be arguments for any one of them. We in fact adopt none of them. We adopt a solution which, in my submission, is based on the most irrelevant of distinctions. We say that the contents are no longer secret once a document has been read aloud in court. Anyone who has heard it read may recount its contents to his friends. He may relate them in a publication to his readers. He may shout them from the house tops, however embarrassing they may be for the owner of the document. If he is able to take down the contents in shorthand as they are read out, he can make them known word for word. If he is permitted to use a tape recorder—as he well may be under the present system—he may record them and publish what is on his tape. If he cannot get the words down, or if he is not sure of the accuracy of the transcript, he can check it against the document if he can somehow obtain possession of it. Only two people in the whole world are not entitled to disclose what has been read out—the other party to the action and his solicitor.
In Committee the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), in a very persuasive intervention, suggested that since there is a fair prospect that other

people may not be in court, or that they may not be disposed to repeat what they have heard, or that a journalist may not have taken down what was read out, there is a better prospect of confidentiality if we ordain that the party and the solicitor—who would be most likely to have a copy of the document—should not reveal it, although anyone else may do so. It is a pragmatic solution, but it is the most unpredictable and the most uncertain solution of all, because it achieves neither objective. It achieves the worst of all worlds. It does not safeguard the owner of the document and it impedes the free distribution of information, depending on the pure eventuality of who happened to have been in court and heard it read and whether he managed to catch its contents. If a journalist knows that it is to be read out—and no one can be prevented from warning him in advance that it may be—it seems that he has to decide.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said in Committee, a journalist might strive laboriously to take down every word in shorthand. He would then risk having misheard a word or having left something out. Alternatively, he might abandon all attempts to report the reading, and risk finding that some more assiduous rival had scooped him.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) urged in Committee that, if confidentiality is so important, perhaps it should be protected, but in that case it should be protected in relation to all that is said in proceedings, whether or not the matter is read from the document and whether or not it is taken down in shorthand.
In Committee the Solicitor-General confirmed that the Lord Chancellor had already said in another place—as we knew—that he was carrying out consultations. It was not possible then to give a definitive answer and it may be that it will not be possible to give a definitive answer today. The official Opposition will fully understand if the Solicitor-General has a difficulty about that. It may be that what we are discussing today are procedures.
In Committee the Solicitor-General was able to go a little further than that, because he told us that the Lord Chancellor was proposing to refer the matter to the Law Reform Committee. There was some criticism of that proposal. Some anxieties were expressed, and I say at once that I share them. That does not entail any suggestion that the Law Reform Committee is not a body of very distinguished lawyers, well able to grasp the arguments for and against any proposal for law reform. I hope that it was not a suggestion that they are not capable of approaching the matter with open minds, for they are trained to approach any matter with an open mind. There is certainly no criticism of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Lord Scarman, although, as he sat on appeal in the Harman case, he may feel that he would prefer not to be involved.
The criticism is simply that the Law Reform Committee is a group of distinguished lawyers. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a lawyers' view of the question, any more than there is a journalists' view. Some lawyers would emphasise the importance of confidentiality; some might be more impressed by the importance of freedom of information. But when we have a highly controversial matter in which a group of people, such as a substantial proportion of the journalists' profession, have a clear interest, and where we are dealing not with a highly technical point of lawyers' law but with a question which


has very sensitive political connotations, it is better for it to be considered by a more broadly based committee. If it is not, then, however objective and dispassionate the members of the committee may try to be, it will be hard to persuade the public that a more representative group would necessarily have arrived at the same conclusion.
I hope that we shall be told today that, even if the Lord Chancellor has not yet reached a conclusion on the matter, he has reconsidered it and has referrred it for advice to a body which includes lawyers—among them solicitors in general practice who encounter the problems daily—and journalists, and perhaps even members of the reading public with an interest in reading about such matters. I hope that when the Solicitor-General replies to the debate he will give us a little more cheer than his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State was able to give us in the last debate. At this stage we shall be happy to listen to what he has to say.

Mr. Christopher Price: I can no longer remember which Harman debate this is since we have had so many of them on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I wish that my party had selected last Thursday as the date for the Peckham by-election so that Miss Harriet Harman could have made her maiden speech on a subject on which she is more expert than anyone else. Unhappily we shall have to wait another 10 days before her arrival among us. I shall do my humble best to try to say some of the things that she might have said.
In the end, the House will have to put right the legal nonsense caused by the 3 : 2 House of Lords judgment—the Diplock versus Scarman judgment—that was finally reached. The quotation that I like best in all the legal reports is that in Scott versus Scott in 1913 where it is stated:
Every court of justice is open to every subject of the King.
That is a splendid statement of how our courts ought to operate. When the Harman case got to the Lords, Lord Diplock invented a new legal rule in finding against Miss Harman. As a member of the National Union of Journalists, I resent this rule more than anything else. Lord Diplock said:
There are two kinds of reporters of proceedings in courts of justice. One kind consists of those who report cases for the regular series of law reports that are published to inform the legal profession of the reasons expressed in judgments that constitute the raw material from which binding precedent is distilled; the other kind"—
one can hear the tone of voice change—
consists of those whose metier is to produce fair and accurate, though it may be much condensed, contemporaneous accounts of what happened in the course of the day's proceedings in court.
Lord Diplock then distinguished between the two kinds of journalists, as Lord Denning did in the Court of Appeal.
Parliament cannot allow the judges to divide a profession such as journalism into two so that one kind can report the proceedings of the courts and the other kind cannot. That is what happened in the Harman case, and it is a complete absurdity. The courts must be open. We made a little progress last year so that lawyers and journalists are now allowed in certain cases to bring tape recorders into court if their shorthand is not up to the necessary standard to take down every word. It is absurd for the judges to invent complicated rules after such changes. The invented rules say that even if things are read out in open court, nevertheless they must not be disclosed if someone did not happen to be there, with wrists of steel,

taking it down in shorthand or using a tape recorder. 'That is a complete absurdity arid laymen in the House should make that clear to the professional legal people who have invented this nonsensical and absurd doctrine.
That is why I strongly support the plea of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that the resolution of the case must not rest with a number of judges, however eminent, in the Law Reform Committee, but must be considered—if it has to be considered outside the House—by a group consisting of lawyers of both sorts and, particularly, journalists.
More than anything else, the Harman judgment is an anti-journalist judgment. It makes journalists uncertain where they stand in reporting the High Court and unsure of their rights in going for information that they have heard with their ears, but have failed to get down accurately in shorthand or failed to record accurately with a tape recorder.
I am sure that the matters will be sorted out in a few years' time, but the Solicitor-General promised us in Committee that he would come back with further news of how he was getting on with his consideration of the matter. I sit down in the expectation of good news from him at last.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that I come bearing news, though only time will tell whether it will be enough to make him happy.
I apologise for my absence from part of the debate. It is the only part of the proceedings on the Bill that I have missed. I told the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that I would be away and I am obliged to him for telling the House that I had done that.
I also appreciate the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office spoke on the new clauses relating to coroners. There is no difference between us, but responsibility for matters relating to coroners rests with the Home Office and it seemed proper, therefore, that a senior Home Office Minister should tell the House about the policy of his Department.
One ground alone will be sufficient to enable me to ask the House to reject the new clause. It is the consultations and so on for which preparations are being made. We are dealing with a difficult subject and there are many views to be taken into account. Outside the House people can discuss, rather than debate as we do, and everybody's views can be taken at first hand. We all agree on that, but we have not reached agreement on the appropriate method of consultation.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to consult widely and asked only the opportunity to early out that undertaking. In his name. I ask for the new clause to be rejected or not pressed, so that he may fulfil that undertaking.
Let me give a progress report on what is being done. I do not suggest that any of the vehicles that present themselves are ideal. We are discussing an unusual, important and interesting point which has many facets. We should be lucky to find a ready-made vehicle for looking into it, but that does not mean that we should automatically look for an ad hoc vehicle and ignore the existing ones. Two obvious candidates were the Law Commission and the Law Reform Committee.
I was asked in Committee what would be par for the course as regards timing with either of those bodies. That


was a fair question. We cannot consider the Law Commission because of its present work load and the time that it would take to conduct as full an inquiry as we agree is essential. The alternative is the Law Reform Committee, and I can report some progress on that matter. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. Justice Bingham to chair a sub-committee of the Law Reform Committee. Plainly it would not be appropriate for the chairman of the committee, Lord Scarman, to carry out that task, even if he had the time, but we are fortunate that Mr. Justice Bingham will preside over the body.
The terms of reference of the Committee are:
To examine the duty owed by a party to proceedings or his solicitor not to use documents disclosed to him on discovery for any purpose unconnected with those proceedings and to consider whether any changes in the law are, in the opinion of the Committee, desirable.
In those terms of reference we are putting to the committee the matters that have been complained about in our debates. No qualifications or inhibitions are built into the terms of reference and I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West will regard it as a step in the right direction.

Mr. Christopher Price: It could hardly be called a step, and only time will tell whether it is in the right direction. Can the committee receive oral or written evidence, and is there a mechanism by which it can inform itself of the real problems faced by journalists in reporting cases?

The Solicitor-General: Those matters have been decided. I wish to mention the further possibilities on which decisions have not been taken. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said, there are regular members of the committee, but there is a power to co-opt, and my noble and learned Friend is considering whether that power should be exercised in this case. That is one reason why I cannot inform the House of the membership of the committee. I am authorised by my noble and learned Friend to say that—which might be seen as an invitation to those who wish to make submissions to do so. The committee may examine witnesses and receive oral and written evidence. It would be only too pleased to obtain the views of all those who are interested, over the widest possible spectrum. The onus will shift slightly to those who wish to express their views.
That is the progress to date. The choice of chairman and the settling of the terms of reference are important steps and I hope that they will satisfy hon. Members whose interest in the matter is substantial. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his new clause after hearing the progress report. However, I must make some more remarks to try to restore the balance, because there are different views on the subject. Unless I do so, others who are listening might have a rather distorted view.
The matter does not concern the freedom of the press, nor do the points put forward by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West arise. In our legal system we have a vigorous process of discovery. If I have documents that I do not wish my opponent to see because they may be to the detriment of my case, I shall have a built-in reluctance to disclose them. However, our courts say that there must be no nonsense, that one must disclose the documents and

that one's solicitor must make an affidavit stating that all documents that exist have been disclosed. That factor contributes powerfully to the ability of our courts to get at the truth and to see that justice is done. We should be careful not to do anything that weakens that position and that makes the person who is forced to disclose documents that he does not wish to disclose even more reluctant to do so. If I disclose documents to my solicitor, I should be surprised if he used them for any purpose other than the case, but if I must disclose documents to my opponent's solicitor, I should be horrified if there was a suggestion that he could use them for any purpose other than the litigation.
That is the origin of the rule. I know that there are differences of opinion about it, but I do not accept the point of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—that a new rule has been cooked up. The inquiry will allay fears on that point.
The rule does not concern the confidentiality of documents. They remain confidential until they have been read in court, when all confidentiality is gone. However, a solicitor into whose possession they have been put must not use them for any purpose other than for the action. Once a document has been read in court it is in the public domain and anyone who has heard it or who can ascertain its contents is free to make whatever use of it he wishes.
I do not underestimate the practical difficulties to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West referred. A reporter may not be in court when the document is read. No one can be everywhere at the same time. Perhaps one of his friends said "There was some hot news in court but I did not take a note of it". The court does not impose a residual duty not to breach confidentiality. The reporter may not have attended the court, he may not have realised the importance of a document or his shorthand may not have been fast enough to write it down, but that is not the fault of the rule.
It must also be remembered—I have not referred to the Harman case because the inquiry will go beyond that—that none of the questions raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West about reporting are relevant to the Harman case. What Miss Harman did—I express no view about whether it was right or wrong—was to give the papers to an individual not because he wanted to write a report, either for the law reports or the daily press, but because he wanted to use them to write a book about prisons. I am speaking elliptically rather than filling in the details, but this was not a case of a reporter wishing to see the documents to write a report in the newspapers the next day—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is irrelevant."] It is not irrelevant. Many other things have been said today that are irrelevant and I am seeking to restore the balance a little.
Different views have to be considered on all of these matters. They will be the subject of much fuller examination in the inquiry that I hope will now be near to getting under way. The House may stick pins into me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as much as it likes, and may urge us to get on faster and to do one particular thing or another. However, the appropriate thing for the House, rather than to consider the new clause further, is to wish godspeed to the body that will examine this important and interesting matter.

Mr. Archer: I am bound to say, without meaning offence, that certain distinctions that the Solicitor-General made left me a little puzzled. I do not see why it matters that in a particular case the reason why someone wishes to refer to the documents is that they want to write not for a newspaper but for a book. That is not a relevant distinction, and the Solicitor-General is not entitled to say that this debate is not concerned with the freedom of the press, because it clearly is. I have said, I hope fairly, that it relates to the conflict of two principles. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that it is concerned with one of these principles but not the other.
However, we derive certain satisfaction from the debate. First, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the inquiry is being chaired by a very distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Bingham, and we would not have sought to improve on that.
I note what the Solicitor-General says about the power to co-opt and from the fact that he said it I hope that it will be impressed on the minds of those who are in a position to exercise the power.
I was pleased to hear the Solicitor-General emphasise that the inquiry will be entitled, and I assume happy, to receive written evidence and to hear witnesses. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot commit the inquiry, but as he said that I assumed that these matters do not go unsaid elsewhere.
In those circumstances the Opposition are content to leave the matter where it is at the moment, and I respond to the Solicitor-General's invitation to wish godspeed to the inquiry.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

DEEMED METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS (No. 2)

'After section 19(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 there shall be inserted a subsection as follows—

"2A. The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament specify non-metropolitan districts which shall for the purpose of sections 55 and 59 of this Act be deemed to be metropolitan districts".'. —[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—

DEEMED METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

'After section 19(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 there shall be inserted a subsection as follows—
2A. The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament specify non-metropolitan districts which shall for the purpose of sections 55 and 59 of this Act be deemed to be metropolitan districts".'.

Mr. Archer: These new clauses embody a proposal that was described in Committee as being a preliminary canter round the course. In an attempt to expedite the work of the Committee I suspect that I may have described the proposal somewhat elliptically and in the process I may inadvertently have misled the Solicitor-General in what I was proposing. Reading the debate again I suspect there

was a misunderstanding, and I accept my part of the responsibility. I had believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had had access to what was proposed and in that I may have been wrong.
New clauses 5 and 6 are identical except in one very narrow matter. New clause 5 proposes that the power and the duty that is proposed shall be vested in the Lord Chancellor, while new clause 6 proposes that they shall be vested in the Home Secretary. The reason is that. having originally proposed that the powers should be given to the Lord Chancellor, I was later persuaded that the Home Secretary was the appropriate Minister. Therefore, new clause 6 is the important clause.
The new clause is designed to meet a problem. The servicing of magistrates' courts in relation to such matters as court accommodation, staff and so on, is decided by a magistrates' courts committee. The committee has no money of its own, so it directs the appropriate local authority to make provisions that it considers necessary, and to pay the costs of them. There is a requirement that the local authority should be consulted before certain requirements are made, but the magistrates' courts committee may overrule the local authority and reach a decision even if the local authority does not concur. The local authority then has the right of appeal to the Home Secretary.
In practice, matters are usually resolved without formal appeals, but there are sometimes differences of opinion, which can go deeply and become heated, on occasions within the magistrates' courts committee itself and on other occasions between the magistrates' courts committee and the local authority.
Of the money which the local authority expends for this purpose, 80 per cent. is recovered directly from the Home Office, leaving the local authority with only 20 per cent. of the budget. Of that 20 per cent., half is likely to be reflected in arrangements for rate support grant, so that whichever local authority bears the cost, only about 10 per cent. will fall on local government as against the Exchequer. If the cost is borne by the county council, recovery is by way of precept from the ratepayers of the various districts. If it is borne by the district council, recovery is from the same ratepayers, whose payments go to the budget of the district council. This is not about who provides the money, because whichever authority meets the cost, all the respective proportions of the burden will fall on the same shoulders.
Before 1974, each city and borough council provided for the needs of the magistrates' courts in its area. There was a magistrates' courts committee for that area consisting of representatives of magistrates on the local bench. The magistrates' courts in areas falling outside cities and county boroughs were provided for by the county council and there was a single magistrates' courts committee for those areas within county boundaries falling outside cities or county boroughs. That system seemed to work quite well, and I still do not know why it was changed.
The Local Government Act 1972 will have many sins laid to its charge by history, and it includes among its misdemeanours the: fact that it changed that system. In metropolitan counties there is still broadly the same system. There is still a magistrates' courts committee for each metropolitan district which makes the provision required, and one committee for the remainder of the county. But in non-metropolitan cities and districts, the


position is different. All the provisions for the magistrates' courts within the county are made by the county council and there is one magistrates' courts committee for the whole of the county. Magisterial benches for large historic cities and boroughs, such as Hartlepool, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Worcester, Stoke-on-Trent, Newport and others, must rely on the provision decided by the magistrates' courts committees which they share with small towns and rural areas having different practices, traditions and problems.
In my opinion it would be as sensible to ordain that one local authority should deal with the problems of inner city areas together with the problems of rural parishes as to say that one magistrates' courts committee should deal with both categories of bench. We may hear later from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) some of the anxieties about magistrates' courts in that area, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) will have something to say about his area.
The new clause simply proposes to revert to the position as it was before 1974 when the 1972 Act took effect. In debate in Committee, it appears that the Solicitor-General perhaps did not fully grasp the proposal. No doubt that was because I did not make it totally clear, in the interests—I thought—of expedition, because I thought that he had access to more details of the proposal than he had. He objected on the ground that a local authority would have to deal with more than one magistrates' courts committee. But that is not the proposal. The proposal is that in the case of magistrates' courts in one of the districts which it is thought appropriate to specify within the powers given in the clause, the district council will be responsible for making the necessary provision, and the district council will deal with the magistrates' courts committee for the district. The county council will provide for the remainder of the county, so that each local authority will deal with one magistrates' courts committee, and of course each magistrates' courts committee will deal with one local authority. That is the way in which advisory committees are at present arranged.
Although after the 1972 Act the Home Office approached the problem of magistrates' courts committees in this way, the Lord Chancellor evidently took a different view on how to organise advisory committees, and not for the first time—even in our debates on the Bill—I find myself on the side of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and against the Home Office.
It is not easy to understand why the Home Office took the view that it did, but I hope that I have now elaborated the proposal so that the Solicitor-General understands how it is intended to operate. It enjoys support within the Justices' Clerks' Society, and it is no secret that the suggestion originated from members of that society. I do not know whether others will take a different view, but if so, those views have not yet been made known to me. Perhaps in the course of the debate the Solicitor-General will enlighten us on the matter, but having expounded the proposal and the reasons for it, I hope with the support of a number of my hon. Friends, I am content to leave the matter there.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I should like briefly to express my support for new clause 6. In doing so, perhaps I should say that as I have no legal expertise, I have been briefed on the matter by those who are fully aware of the practical disadvantages that have arisen in large urban areas which are quite distinct from the counties that surround them, since the operation of the Local Government Act 1972 created the changes of 1974.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned discussions that took place in Standing Committee A. However, concern was expressed about the situation long before that. Certainly, the clerk to the justices of the city of Portsmouth expressed views in no uncertain terms in the representations he made on behalf of the Portsmouth city bench about the Local Government Finance Act 1982, when it was thought that there was a possibility of reform.
I do not know whether it is possible at this stage to expect the Government to take on board these proposals, but I am certain that, if not, an assurance that the justice of the case which has been put forward on behalf of the justices' clerks, and by them in turn on behalf of the magistrates of the city benches that they support, is recognised by the Government as valid. In Portsmouth we have a densely populated urban area with many social and economic problems which are quite distinct from the problems experienced in the county of Hampshire. That shows itself in this matter, as in so many others.
The Portsmouth city bench was and is unanimous in seeking a return to the pre-1974 position. The Portsmouth courts staff is also unanimous in seeking a return to that position. I suggest, therefore, that those who have had the task of administering the new system have found it wanting, insofar as it has proved insensitive to the particular needs of administering justice in an urban area, when the authority to whom it is necessary to turn for the provision of facilities is a county area which is in fact the most wealthy county in this country, while Portsmouth is by no means the most wealthy city.
It may be thought that a return to the pre-1974 position would probably be administratively difficult. I cannot comment on the situation in other districts, about which we may hear later, but certainly the Portsmouth magistrates' courts committee, although it ceased to have any statutory function after 1974, never completely dissolved itself. It was not disbanded, and continued to operate in a shadow function to provide the kind of advice that it was specifically qualified to give.
It has been recognised that representations need to be made to a local authority body such as the Portsmouth city council which, by its very nature and by its local expertise and knowledge, is sensitive to the needs of the administration of justice in a city. I shall not elaborate on individual problems that have arisen but, I shall give examples to illustrate their range. For instance, the need to introduce computerised operations was not apparent to our county council, whereas it was immediately apparent to the justices in Portsmouth, and undoubtedly would have commended itself to the Portsmouth city council. It was difficult also to obtain a speedy decision by the Hampshire county council on providing physically improved premises. In applications for regrading by staff, the same lack of immediate and urgent understanding was revealed.
I am certain that whatever decisions were reached by the Hampshire county council on those matters, they were reached with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, the result is that those concerned with the administration of justice in the city of Portsmouth are dissatisfied with the arrangements that exist. In particular, they say that the Hampshire magistrates' courts committee has no fewer than 31 justices as members, but only five of them represent the interests of Portsmouth. Nevertheless, the city provides—it is not proud of this—20 per cent. or more of the workload which is undertaken by those same magistrates. The city is grossly under-represented on the Hampshire magistrates' committee. I am told—I imagine that this is probably true—that in this respect Portsmouth is the busiest town in Britain. Therefore, it needs to have close links with the local authority which is to make financial provision for it.
I am looking for the acceptance of the new clause, which was moved so ably by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, or at least for an assurance that when it becomes apparent that there is an unsatisfactory system in operation the Government will consider bringing forward legislation in the not too distant future to permit the restoration of magistrates' courts' committees in district authorities that are distinct from the county councils that surround them.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that in Committee he permitted himself a preliminary canter. I am sure, bearing in mind his long experience in these matters, that he had at the back of his mind the considerable history of representations following what might be described as the anomalies that arose from the Local Government Act 1972. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered that measure before its enactment. I spent many hours debating some of the problems that we foresaw would stem from the Bill and we are now discussing one of them.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will not be critical of me when I say that no Home Office Minister is present. Even if he is not sufficently persuaded by our arguments to support the amendment, I have sufficient experience of his good self to feel that his flexibility in these matters might be more helpful than the rigid positions that have been adopted by the Home Office in the past. The Solicitor-General's good offices are needed to provide some persuasion. If he cannot give firm support for the new clause, I hope that he will leave the door open slightly so that the Home Office can, through him, receive the mood of the House.
It may be the position of the Home Office that the issue before the House does not comply with the principle of the boundaries of magistrates' courts' committees being coincident with the local authorities which finance them. The very purpose of the Bill is to provide for districts the right to have their committees financed by their district councils. I understand that the Association of District Councils does not oppose the amendment.
More than that, the magistrates of the district councils in the non-metropolitan county areas have responsibility for administering justice. They are at the nub of the application of justice. They, and not the Home Office, implement justice. The considerable amount of opinion and experience that has been presented to the Home Office over the years should be sufficient now to persuade the

Government to accept that the clause is reasonable and will increase the efficient implementation of our magistrates' duties.
The Home Office may say that there has been a lack of consultation. That is a legitimate view to take. But similar amendments were brought before those in another place on 15 and 30 October 1980 when the other place was considering the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. The amendments were lost but they could not have been introduced in their Lordships' House if there had not been considerable prior consultation. The proposers of the amendments did not accept that there had been no discussion. In any event, it is clear that since then there has been more positive and pertinent discussion. I submit that the Home Office is not without knowledge of the methods of district councils in bringing various bodies into consultations.
I am informed that the Home Office has known about these proposals for several years. Apparently it does not support any change. It has been asked for its updated views. It was asked to present them on 22 November 1980 and it took it until. July 1981 to respond. That is hardly a sign of enthusiastic support for something which had general agreement among the magistrates' courts committees of the various districts in the non-metropolitan areas.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor takes the view, quite rightly, that this sort of new clause is specifically for the Home Office and not for his Department. It will be helpful if the Solicitor-General will convey to the Home Office that hon. Members on both sides of the House are trying in a reasonable manner to permit a continuing dialogue to take place. I hope he will consider ways of keeping the doors open for a little longer.
The Home Office may consider that the proposal before us amounts to what might be described as piecemeal change. From the point of view of Governments, that is often a good defensive element to introduce into a debate. Of course no one wants what might be called piecemeal change. However, it is inevitable that some change should arise from the piecemeal changes that followed the enactment of the Local Government Bill. The argument for piecemeal change is invalidated on the ground that experience over the years has shown that the piecemeal changes stemming from the 1972 Act have produced inefficiencies and a good deal of discontent among magistrates who are concerned that the new clause should be adopted.
In the area which I represent, the Hartlepool borough council—following the 1972 Act, it was the natural successor to the old county borough authority—has made it abundantly clear that it is happy, willing, and eager to pay for the magistrates' courts committee.
The Hartlepool borough council is ready to undertake the fullest responsbility. The Hartlepool court staff would welcome the restoration of the Hartlepool magistrates' courts committee. It is understood that the practising solicitors in Hartlepool would welcome the restoration of that committee.
7 pm
The Lord Chancellor has accepted the principle that while, under the 1974 provisions, the magistrates' courts committees were dissolved, in Hartlepool and other districts the committees are still elected and acting in a shadow capacity, giving the county committees the benefit


of their local knowledge. Therefore, the infrastructure is there. The councils are willing to pay. From the magistrates' point of view, the district committees are already there. They are working on a shadow arrangement that is acceptable to the counties and the Lord Chancellor. Therefore there is no difficulty in finance or organisation that would persuade the Home Office not to accept the new clause.
Moreover, in Hartlepool, the Lord Chancellor has retained a separate advisory committee in respect of justices on the Hartlepool bench. All matters affecting those justices are being dealt with directly by the North Cleveland advisory committee, which is responsible for the Hartlepool bench only, and the Lord Chancellor's office. We have the finance and the organisation. The district committees are working in a shadow capacity. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee is working directly with the Lord Chancellor. The committees are working and ready to comply with the objectives of the new clause.
However, there is a problem. At present the workload in the county is split between the three established districts of Teesside, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh. Teesside's workload involves about 34,290 people being dealt with by the courts. In Hartlepool the figure is 7,859 and in Langbaurgh it is 2,687. Experience has shown that the county magistrates' committee tends, because of the majority of magistrates coming from the higher workload area, to attend to Teesside matters more than to Hartlepool affairs. That is understandable. That is human nature and I have no criticism. There are 14 members from Teesside on the county committee but only four from Hartlepool and two from the Langbaurgh division. The chairman from Teesside is always the chairman of the committee. That causes a good deal of difficulty. In addition, there are bound to be delays because the district committee of Hartlepool has to deal with the county committee, which is 15 miles away, separated by the river Tees.
Therefore, we have poor economies, poor efficiency and unnecessary delays. There is prejudicial treatment because the sitting chairman almost always comes from the larger authority. The majority of the magistrates deal with Teesside matters. However, the smaller authority, Hartlepool, that is 15 miles from that area, wants to get on with its own work.
A case has been made out. Consultation has taken place in the past few years. The Home Office is fully aware of all the arguments. The magistrates' committees want to get on with doing the job efficiently, with their knowledge of their own areas, which is better than that of the Home Office. They have the finance and the co-operation of the district councils. There are the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees and in addition there are the shadow committees, which were dissolved under the Act but which in practice have not been disbanded.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept that there is a strong case to persuade the Home Office to change its mind. The argument could continue. The Home Office has taken a view that has been respected in the past. However, a decade has now passed since the Local Government Act 1972 and we should now look forward to a suitable change.

Mr. John Forrester: I wish to make a short contribution on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent without going over all the arguments that have been eloquently put forward.
Before 1974, Stoke-on-Trent was one of the cities and county boroughs with its own magistrates' courts committee. It feels, like so many others, that it has been demoted under the Local Government Act 1972 and that it is dominated by rural views and demands because it is a minority on the magistrates' courts committee. Civic pride has been dented. We should not take that lightly. People in our area do not understand why metropolitan districts that are the same size or smaller can have their own magistrates' courts committee, when they cannot. They argue that if places such as Solihull can have their own magistrates' courts committee, why should not Brighton, Hartlepool, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Stoke-on-Trent have their own magistrates' courts committees?
It has been argued that if a small group of towns and cities were given their own magistrates' courts committees, all the old county boroughs would have to be given their own committees. Eight years after the reform of local government, that argument does not follow. It is not necessary to pursue it. If one applies new clause 6, which we hope the Government will accept, common sense will prevail.
There is a feeling in the magistrates' courts areas that there is much waste of time and money under the present procedure. The meetings with local authorities have to take place in distant places. We have heard of the long journeys, for example from Plymouth to Exeter, which is 100 miles. It is not 100 miles from Stoke-on-Trent to Stafford—it is only 15. However, the people involved in magistrates' courts feel that Stafford is a foreign country. Before local government reorganisation, people in Stoke did not know where Stafford was. However, we are beginning to learn and perhaps in another 50 years we shall get there easily.
People believe that the knowledge of local government officials is deficient for the work of the magistrates' courts. Why should they be experts? They have other things to do. Having to keep up to date with the monthly changes on how to calculate local government finance should be enough for anyone who works in local government, without having to cope with matters that can be dealt with much more efficiently by others.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to the cumbersome procedure that often leads to delays in decisions being taken and the necessity for an appeals procedure, although he said that that procedure was not often necessary because eventually people could talk their way through the problems. It is a delaying process that could be eradicated if the Solicitor-General were prepared to accept the principle of new clause 6.
In Stoke-on-Trent repairs, maintenance and improvements to the court house and offices are all done by the Stoke-on-Trent direct works department, but it is a long circuituous route to get the order from the court house via Stafford, back to the city of Stoke-on-Trent before the work can be carried out. That matter was raised in another place in 1980 under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. It has been raised in Committee, but I understand that no promises have been given. However,


one hopes that the period has been filled with useful consultations, and that in his reply the Solicitor-General will tell us that wiser counsels prevail now.
Stoke-on-Trent contains 36 per cent. of the population of the county of Staffordshire. It provides 30 per cent., or 140, of the justices of the peace. Twenty-nine per cent. of full time staff are employed in Stoke-on-Trent, which provides 39 per cent. of the workload, but the city has only a 17 per cent. representation on the magistrates' courts committee.
Stoke on Trent's influence on the Staffordshire MCC is negligible. The committee is dominated by the 83 per cent. representation from mainly rural areas. That cannot be good, because people from rural areas cannot be expected to understand the problems associated with large cities such as Portsmouth, Hartlepool, Stoke-on-Trent, Plymouth and others. A good case is made out for independence for the committees. The Stoke-on-Trent magistrates want a return to the pre-1974 position. The city council agrees that that should be so. The staff want it, and while I know that the legal profession never has views on such matters, their nods and winks lead one to suppose that they would not be opposed to a return to a pre-1974 position.
The transfer would be smooth. There would be no great hitches or problems. In Stoke-on-Trent the court house and offices are all self-contained. The petty sessional area is the same as the local government area. Stoke-on-Trent has a computerised operation, because that was necessary in a city of its size. The rural areas are as different as chalk from cheese. While they work together they do not always understand each other's problems. There are anomalies, delays and duplication of work within the present system. I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity to put the matter right.
The Solicitor-General: The effect of the new clause would be to require the Home Secretary to designate certain non-metropolitan districts within the non-metropolitan counties as areas which would have separate magistrates' courts committees and for which the paying authority would, presumably, be the council for that district rather than the non-metropolitan county council. Thus, within a county there would be some districts with separate magistrates' courts committees looking to the district council for the provision of resources, while the county magistrates' courts committee cover the remainder of the district. The county council would provide for the courts in those districts. I am assuming that although the provisions in the new clause are mandatory, it would not be intended that they should require the Home Secretary to make every non-metropolitan district comply.
The provision would introduce unevenness into the system, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) lightly accepted. There are other difficulties. It would work where a county borough was coterminous with one petty sessional division—as it is in many cases—but it would not be so easy where the county council was no longer coterminous with the petty sessional division. I am not saying that that reason is conclusive, but the hon. Member for Hartlepool recognised that any proposal which has that effect is unattractive. One has to have arguments good enough to overcome that apparent disadvantage.
I am a county borough man. For many years I represented a county borough and I understand its feelings.

One would think now that the councils of the county boroughs were a collection of all the archangels that ever lived. That is no': the view that was put to me when I was a Member for a county borough. The speeches made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have been motivated to a considerable extent by civic pride, which I recognise is good. Small county boroughs such as the one that I represented, and the larger ones represented by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, take great pride in their character and separate existence.
7.15 pm
Some representations have been made during the year, but they have no: been numerous. They have come from the Members of Parliament representing a few county boroughs. They have not come from the Justices' Clerks' Society, and they have not been sufficient to persuade the Minister responsible for that part of our affairs that legislation or the consultations which would be the necessary first step should be undertaken. I refer to consultations with the Justices' Clerks' Society to take its views, as distinct from the views of the individual clerks, many of whom share the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen. The Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Council of the Magistrates' Courts Committees would also need to be consulted.
I have no doubt that the representations that have been made have been listened to by my colleagues at the Home Office, but they have not been sufficiently persuasive to lead to the next stage. The value of the debate is that hon. Gentlemen representing those areas who have strong feelings about the matter have had the opportunity to express both why the views are held and the strength of feeling behind them.
I freely and happily undertake that I shall draw to the attention of my colleagues who have responsibility for that part of our affairs the fact that we have had a debate in which strong feelings have been expressed by those who are close to the matters about which they have spoken. I have no doubt that those views will be given careful consideration. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, one can get more feeling about the mood and temper in a debate in the House than can be put into a letter, however long one spends drafting the terms of the letter.
I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for taking the initiative Much led to this second preliminary canter round the course, and to the hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate for the trouble that they have taken to explain the position in their areas and for expressing their views with such clarity and courtesy. I suggest that the best course for the House to adopt, if perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that he could take the initiative, is to leave the matter there for the time being.

Mr. Leadbitter: I take on board the temper and mood in which the Solicitor-General has responded, but he will I hope bear in mi ad that there is no opposition from the Association of District Councils. Although I recognise that in the larger question of the magistrates' courts it is not the only body involved, it is, nevertheless, a start. Will the Solicitor-General ;state his willingness to suggest to his Home Office and other colleagues that an initiative for formal or even quasi-formal talks by the Government might be helpful?
We have before us briefs and appeals for a reorganisation from only a limited number of authorities. We have not had the benefit of the views of a larger body, and it is important for the Government to take them into account. They could be obtained in the manner that I suggest.

The Solicitor-General: The one thing that I must not do is to give undertakings other than those which I know I can implement to the full. I hope that I have shown my sympathy for what seems to be a legitimate aspiration to have those views fully considered. I have no reason to believe that my colleagues in the Departments responsible will view it in any other way.
What should be a next step is a matter on which I should not make a commitment. Some of the bodies to which I have referred—my reference was to the effect that we do not know what their corporate view is—may feel that the next step is for them to express a corporate view, if they have one.

Mr. Archer: We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for his careful response. The House has heard tonight not only the theoretical arguments in favour of the new clause but a great deal about the practical difficulties that are being encountered by hard-working magistrates who are trying their best to make the system work. I am grateful to all who have participated for the benefit of their experience.
I am not wholly persuaded on what I understand the Solicitor-General to say is the chief stumbling block—that it might introduce some unevenness if the system were to be introduced in relation, as we think, only to about eight towns and not the others. I cannot for the life of me understand why that should be an argument against the proposal. A number of things are done in some areas and not in others because those who have to operate matters in some areas think that they would be better done in that way whereas others do not. What is wrong with that? I do not understand why it should not be possible for those areas in which the magistrates say that they would like to have the system to have it, but not others.
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his response so far as it goes. There has been a sign of sympathy from him and I have no doubt that the debate will be read by others in the Home Office who have responsibility for these matters. Benches in at least eight towns, consisting of at least 1,000 magistrates, support the proposal, so it is not entirely devoid of support. I hope that at this stage at least the Home Office might feel that it could begin the consultations. It is in a much better position to consult than anyone else. Simply to suggest that it should consult the bodies which might have a view on the subject is not an unreasonable activity to ask even of the Home Office. But it is not possible to take the matter further tonight. If we divided the House the result would be a foregone conclusion and a waste of time.
In the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

REPRESENTATIONS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

'No order shall be made by any court pursuant to subsection (2) of section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 until the court has given an opportunity to make representations to any person who in the opinion of the court has an interest in the subject matter of the order and desires to make representations.'. —[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a matter which was referred to in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) because it was relevant to another issue before the Committee. It was not then the subject of a separate new clause or amendment, but it is a matter on which I have subsequently received representations. I am grateful in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), who unhappily cannot be here tonight, who drew my attention to the matter in the first instance.
Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 gives power to the court in certain circumstances to order that the publication of any report of its proceedings be postponed for such period as it believes necessary. Admittedly, that can be done only on one condition—that in the view of the court it is necessary to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. But the subsection offers no guidance to judges as to how they should exercise that power. It simply leaves the discretion to them.
I do not intend that as a criticism of the draftsmanship. I served on the Committee of that Bill and I did not then suggest that the provision should say otherwise. There are some matters which judges will have broadly in mind when there is an application to exercise the power. On the one hand, there is the danger of a possible injustice to an individual if, for example, he is to face further charges subsequent to the proceedings. On the other, there is the public interest in there being the widest access to information.
But when a judge is confronted with an application in a particular case it is not always easy for him to hold in mind the wider considerations when being invited to concentrate on the details. No doubt, if there is an application to make an order under subsection (2), counsel making the application will explain to the judge in detail the possible injustice or hardship to an individual if the facts become widely known. Of course counsel for the Crown will give the court such assistance as he can, and that may involve pointing out the wider considerations.
Following a recent case in which the matter arose, I understand from an article in The Observer that the Attorney-General is proposing to make a statement to the House as to the instruction that he is intending to give to counsel appearing for the Crown in criminal trials. The Solicitor-General may be able to tell us the content of that, but I am doubtful whether those who may be most closely interested in the matter will feel that their interests are adequately dealt with while one counsel is urging the judge to make the order and the other is assisting from a position of neutrality. That is not the functioning of an adversary system; it is half an adversary system.
As the case in which the issue recently arose is proceeding, it would be wrong for me to refer to the facts


and the merits of the prosecution, but as I believe the order is no longer in issue I can properly say that it involved allegations relating to what took place inside a mental hospital. That is a matter of great importance in which the public has a legitimate interest. Had counsel instructed by The Observer not had an opportunity to point out the considerations arising from the public's right to be informed, the judge might have been left without the assistance of a balanced argument. I say no more than that.
The new clause proposes that this provision should be amended so that no such order should be made until an opportunity has been given to any interested person, who so wishes, to make representation. I accept that what constitutes "giving an opportunity" may require to be worked out in practice. Of course, it will frequently be necessary to make an order, if one is to be made at all, on the first day of a trial. But if it is a trial likely to attract publicity, I apprehend that the media will be likely to be aware in advance of the possibility of an application.
7.30 pm
It is not a new procedure for a court to have counsel in attendance, although not appearing for one of the parties to the proceedings, to make an application to the court to be heard. That happens in a number of contexts. Of course, if the procedure were to be abused it might be necessary to think again. It would not be reasonable to expect a court to hear a long succession of counsel instructed by different newspapers.
As the matter was raised in another place, it is possible that, by now, the Solicitor-General has had some opportunity to consult those concerned and also to discuss it with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We have put down the new clause principally to learn the Government's reaction. It appears to be a genuine problem which should be discussed.

Mr. Christopher Price: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for missing the opening of his speech. I do not intend to address the House for more than a minute or two. This is, however, a very important issue.
I served together, I think, with my right hon. and learned Friend on the Standing Committee on the Contempt of Court Bill. The Bill went through Parliament labelled by the Lord Chancellor, if I remember rightly, as his little ewe lamb. It was introduced into the other place as a gentle little Bill that would liberalise matters to a small degree but make little difference. In fact, it has been used consistently ever since it received the Royal Assent by courts in different parts of Britain as though Parliament had intended it to be a new gagging and silencing procedure. It really should not be treated like that. I shall listen to the Solicitor-General's response with great interest.
I am unhappy about the way in which the Act was used in Nottingham in the series of cases that have gone on under Judge Hopkin in relation to Rampton hospital. I believe that Parliament and the public should know what happens in our psychiatric hospitals. Just as these gags were applied, Parliament was discussing the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill and hon. Members needed information of this kind in order to consider the Bill properly. I had the feeling at the time we were legislating that the Contempt of Court Bill would have effects quite different from those intended. I believe that the Act will have to be gradually changed and amended over the years

so that it does not become an oppressive instrument against free speech and open government. It is in that context that I shall listen carefully to the remarks of the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: I wish to answer first the specific points put to me. There are no plans for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to make a statement. However, the Lord Chancellor has given clear advice to the justices. I should like to read one or two extracts. He remarked:
Whilst I am on the subject of contempt, perhaps it would be well if I said a word about your power under section 4 to postpone reporting. This again was inserted in the Act, not with a view to altering the law, for the power always existed, but for the purpose of clarifying it and making it available in a more accessible form.
It is therefore not right for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to say that Parliament was seeking to introduce a new gag. If it was being used as such, that would he another matter. However, it would be wrong to suggest that either the promoters, who promoted the Bill, or Parliament, by accepting it, had that in mind. I do not believe that any opposition was expressed during the course of the Bill. Experienced journalists and parliamentarians like the hon. Member for Lewisham, West must have appreciated how it could be used and must have taken the view—the hon. Gentleman would otherwise have spotted it arid made a fuss about it—that this was seeking simply to clarify the law and make it available in a more accessible form.
My noble and learned Friend added:
The power to postpone reports, however, is designed to be used with the utmost caution. The right to report proceedings fairly and accurately is not only an essential freedom. It is also an extremely important safeguard against abuse in the administration of justice.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West will, I think, agree that the Lord Chancellor was expressing exactly his sentiments in positive terms. The Lord Chancellor went on:
Complaints have been made that in certain cases courts have been making 'blanket' orders of postponement without clearly stipulating periods. This was never the intention. I must emphasise that no order should be made under section 4(2) unless it is absolutely necessary and that where it is absolutely necessary to use the power, the order should be made in every respect clear and precise both as to the period of postponement arid otherwise.
I hope that this clear and forceful expression of opinion will give some satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman. The new clause raises the issue of whether a new obligation to give opportunities to make representations should be imposed, as a matter of law, upon the court. It is, of course, important that all interested parties should have the opportunity to make representations. I accept entirely that members of the press may have a genuine interest such as would make it right that they have the opportunity to put their views forward and that the court should have the opportunity to hear their views and take them into account.
The only question before the House is whether it is necessary or even helpful to enshrine that in legislation as proposed in the new clause. I suggest that the new clause would not assist for three reasons: it is wrong in principle; it is imprecise in its terms; is unnecessary in practice.
It is already a principle of our law that the court will always hear arguments. The general rule is that the parties should be heard on matters affecting the conduct of a trial. This does not need be spelt out. In accordance with that


general principle, the court would always hear argument on the subject of publication from the parties to an action or a criminal prosecution. It seems to me that the new clause would create an obligation on the court to hear nonparties such as the press on the matter. The creation of such a new right on behalf of individual press representatives would, in my submission, have an undesirable and unnecessary effect. Adjournments, delays and costs would all be increased and the court might find itself seeking the assent of the local press corps before acceding to an application from a party for a postponement order. As I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned in passing, if one were to have such a legal obligation it would be essential to define very precisely the class of persons entitled to be heard. I make no complaint that with the time and facilities at his disposal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have been able to deal fully with that question. In the form in which it has come before the House, the new clause would be unsatisfactory in that respect.
More important, however, is this practical consideration. So far, where persons have wished to be heard, they have been heard. If that were not so, I should have considerable sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and the purpose behind the new clause. In the two leading cases on this—the Horsham case and the Rampton case—if there had not been a way for the press to make its views known I might well have taken the view that there was a deficiency in the system. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend know, however, not only was the press able to put its views forward, it took a leading part in having a review of the making of the order. The National Union of Journalists promoted the proceedings for judicial review in the Horsham case and it was represented before the judge in the Rampton case when he reviewed his own decision.
I therefore put forward those three brief but, I suggest, substantial reasons for saying that the better course here is to go ahead using the principles well known to our law. We should leave a discretion in the courts as to whom to hear and when. We should rely upon them to exercise that discretion in accordance with the principles that we all know well and which were enshrined in what the Lord Chancellor said to the justices. We should rely, too, on the fact that, so far, all the evidence is that those who have a legitimate interest, and specifically the press, have been accorded the opportunity to be heard, and that our system permits the according to them of that opportunity to have their views expressed.
I therefore invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the new clause. Alternatively, I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Archer: Once again, we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for his careful reaction to our suggestions. At least we now know that the Attorney-General does not propose to make a statement to the House. My remarks were based on a report in The Oberver to the effect that he was expected to make such a statement this week. However, we can all be wrong and it may be that that was thought to be likely at the time.
I accept, of course, that when the original provision was included in the Act it was not intended to be repressive.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has said, the danger is that when courts are under pressure and have to make up their minds on the spur of the moment it may not always operate in practice exactly as we envisaged when we discussed the matter in Committee.
If I may say so, I do not accept as a criticism the argument that one would have to define the expression used in the clause:
any person who in the opinion of the court has an interest in the subject matter".
Those are all perfectly normal words in the English language and any judge before whom the matter is likely to come would be quite capable of applying them. I should have thought that such an expression could be operated perfectly well. The court can decide whether it considers that a person making an application has an interest in the subject matter. I said, of course, that I thought that it might require some working out in practice as to what constituted the giving of an opportunity, but that is a different matter.
I am not sure that I entirely understood what the Solicitor-General meant when he said that the new clause was unnecessary because the court had the discretion already. He then cited two recent examples in which, if I may say so, the system did not operate as we envisaged. The court indeed heard counsel on behalf of sections of the press, but only after the order had been made and, as I understand it, only after the question had arisen whether members of the press were likely to be in breach of the order.
7.45 pm
We had it in mind that everyone should have his mind set at rest from the outset and that the matter should be clarified. Before the order is made, the person concerned should have the opportunity to address his argument to the court. If the Solicitor-General is arguing that there is no difficulty because a person is always entitled to stand up in court and to say that although he is not a party to the action and does not represent such a party he wishes the court to hear him before the order is made, that is probably right, although I was not entirely sure about this and I would welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance.
If the rule goes as far as that and judges are likely at appropriate times to exercise that power, I think that we should be satisfied. If, however, it is intended that the judge should make the order willy-nilly and that only when a representative of the press finds either that he has already been in breach of it or that he is likely immediately to be in breach of it can he address the judge, that is not what we had in mind at all, because that would not meet the mischief. I would therefore welcome anything that the Solicitor-General can tell us about that power, although I should say at once that we do not intend to divide the House on this today. Perhaps before I seek leave to withdraw the new clause the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to intervene to elucidate this point.

The Solicitor-General: I am happy to endeavour to assist. It is my understanding that the judge is entirely master of what happens in his own court. If he felt that somebody wished to express a view when he was considering making an order, I believe that the matter would be entirely in his discretion, on the general principle that he is master in his own court in terms of whom he decides to hear in it. In the cases that I mentioned,


although so far as I know there was no person in court who asked to be heard on the subject, events have proved that it is nevertheless open to the press to participate in the setting aside of an order, whether or not a representative of the press was heard before the order was made. If I am right on both those points, I believe that there is a fair opportunity for the press to be heard.

Mr. Archie: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I think that he has made us a little happier. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

CORONER TO SUMMON JURY FOR CASE OF DEATH IN
POLICE CUSTODY ETC.

'In section 13 subsection (2) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 (which requires a coroner to summon a jury in certain circumstances) there shall be added after paragraph (e) the following paragraph—

"or"

(f) that the death occurred while the deceased was in police custody, or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported execution of his duty —[Mr Christopher Price.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 8

SERVICES RENDERED TO INJURED PERSON

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 14, leave out from 'then' to 'the' in line 15.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 8, in page 8, line 14, after 'agreed', insert
'in the knowledge that an action for damages has been raised or is in contemplation.'
No. 12 in page 8, line 25, at end add
'and no claim in delict in respect of such services shall be made by the injured person without the written consent of the relative'.
No. 13, in clause 10, page 9, line 12, after 'payable', insert 'for loss of earnings'.
No. 14, in page 10, line 7, leave out clause 11.

Mr. Dewar: It is appropriate that we should take these amendments together, as they all deal roughly with the same area of law, although they are not especially closely interrelated. I should therefore like to sub-group them for the purpose of my remarks, beginning with amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 8, in which I rather generously offer alternative solutions to a real problem that was canvassed at some length in Committee, as reported at columns 12 to 20 of the Official Report.
I make no more than a passing reference to the fact that it is difficult to give proper consideration to these matters in Scottish terms when there is a Scottish insert, if that is the proper way to describe it, in an English law reform measure. Obviously, the number of Scottish Members who served on the Committee was limited—the cynic may say that they are rather limited in the Chamber tonight—but we are dealing with matters of some moment and we must detain the House for a few minutes to discuss them.
This is very much an argument about the technicalities of how to achieve a common goal. Clause 8 produces a new head of claim, whereby an injured person may sue for the services rendered to him by a relative. The bill provides that the action may proceed for that head of claim unless the relative had expressly agreed that no payment should be made for the services. There has been a lengthy argument about the meaning of the wording in that provision and whether it is a practicable form of words to have in a statute. The question that worries me is what an express agreement means. The Solicitor-General may say that the courts must consider the facts and make their decisions. However, we agree that we do not want too many inquiries where a relative is put into the witness box to extract from him an admission that when the services were rendered he had no thought of pecuniary compensation, but had provided the services out of love, respect, devotion or family duty.
The present form of words will raise the possibility that someone will undertake services for an injured person with the explicit understanding that no payment will be made. People often say "You are injured. You will be in financial difficulties and I would not dream of taking payment." However, when it becomes clear that liability may be established against a third party, it may be proper to recover the loss su-7fered by the relative—for example, loss of earnings. It is undesirable to establish a situation in which the initial basis on which the services were given can be prayed in aid as a bar to the head of claim.
We discussed the matter briefly in Committee. The Solicitor-General dwelt on the position of a husband and wife team. He said:
The wife, for example, might say in the witness box 'Yes. I have looked after m:v husband throughout his illness. I gave up my job. I did not have in the forefront of my mind any prospect that I might be remunerated for that.' That is one thing. In those circumstances a husband would still be entitled to make a claim under clause 8." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 July 1982; c. 15-16.] 
There is a significant difference between that position and one where the husband and wife have agreed, either in writing or by orally expressed admission in the witness box, that the wife should receive no payment for that service. The Solicitor-General thought that the court would not consider that to be an express agreement. Such difficulties may be :-emote in the case of husband and wife, because it is unlikely that anyone will know of the conversation. The wife is unlikely to admit that she rendered a service on the express agreement that she would not be paid. As the income of a husband and wife is usually pooled, such circumstances are unlikely to arise.
The second set of circumstances would be the aunt-nephew relationship, to which the Solicitor-General did not address himself in Committee. The nephew may have been involved in a serious road accident, and the aunt gives up her job to nurse him. At the beginning of the arrangement the aunt may explicitly say "Don't you worry about a thing. I should not dream of taking any of your money. You will be back on your feet in a few months and we can manage." That may raise a presumption that if, in the witness box, the aunt admitted that she had said that, the head of claim would be defeated and struck out, on the form of words to which the Solicitor-General is thirled. That would be socially unjust. That position might be cured by perjury, by the aunt denying the basis of the arrangement. We should not encourage that position by the form of words in the statute.
I wish to suggest a solution to the problem. The problem is not one that has been conceived only in my mind and no one else's. The issue is of considerable anxiety to the Law Society of Scotland. In Committee I moved an amendment which the Law Society favoured. I suggested that the ground of action should be allowed unless the court was satisfied that the relative was unwilling. I do not say that the amendment was derided by the Solicitor-General—that would be too strong—but he dismissed it on the ground that there would have to be an inquiry by the court, which had to be satisfied that the relative was unwilling. Conversely, it had also to be satisfied that the relative was willing. Inevitably, the relative would have to enter the witness box to establish the state of mind. The Solicitor-General properly said that that was an impractical solution which would bring more problems than it would solve.
I was glad to withdraw that suggestion, and I now generously offer the Solicitor-General a choice of solutions. My first choice is incorporated in amendments Nos. 11 and 12. They would remove the words
unless the relative has expressly agreed that no payment should be made in respect of those services
from clause 8(1). We would insert at the end of clause 8(2) the words
and no claim in delict in respect of such services shall be made by the injured person without the written consent of the relative.
I am attracted to that suggestion. It is not put forward in a frivolous manner. In Committee we often put forward frivolous suggestions, because Oppositions have to be seen to oppose. That hostage may be quoted to me on some future occasion. The suggestion is simple. It provides that the head of action shall be argued within the claim. Therefore, the relative concerned must give a written consent and confirm that he has seen the claim and accepts that it reasonably quantifies his loss. The only challenge could be that the consent was fraudulent, forged or that the court was being misled. If the written consent of the relative was lodged we would end the possibility of evidence, tricky cross-examination and the attempt to extract from a person an admission which was not in his interests.
There is another advantage. Written into clause 8(2) is a duty for the injured person to account to the relative for any damages recovered under the head of claim. That is a deviation from the wishes of the Law Society. That right to account dovetails very well with what I am suggesting, which is the written consent to put in the head of claim in the action for damages.
8 pm
Thirdly, this is a fair proximation of what was stated in paragraph 31 of the 1978 Scottish Law Commission report, which stated:
A simpler and broader solution to the problem would seem to be called for, which at the same time adequately protected the interests of the relative. We consider that, in any proceedings, the injured person should not be able to make a competent claim under this head unless he lodges in process a statement which specifies the services and is signed by the relative. Such a formality shall not be required unless and until an action for damages is raised.
The provisions of amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are broadly in line with what the Scottish Law Commission recommended. They have the advantage of ensuring that there will not be unnecessary evidence or the unpleasant

formality of the relative going into the box. I hope that the Solicitor-General will look at this reasonably sympathetically. When he dealt with this matter in Committee, he said:
When we consider the Scottish courts and rules of court, that issue"—
that is, the issue of signed consent—
will have to be discussed. But it is separate from the issues raised by the amendment." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 6 July 1982, c. 19.] 
I do not understand that. I do not think that it is separate from the issues raised by the amendment. It is a sensible way of attempting to safeguard the position as I have outlined it. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will look reasonably carefully at amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
If, however, they do not find favour with him, I offer the alternative of amendment No. 8. That is also a useful improvement on the form of words contained in the Bill. This is an attempt to establish that the specific agreement that no compensation shall be received by the relative should be made at a time when the relative had knowledge that there was a possibility of recovery by an action for damages in the court. In other words, it gets us away from the situation where a relative, perhaps in an excess of duty and feeling anxiously that he should be doing the selfless thing, agrees to help the injured party and says "I will not take any of your money". That excludes the possibility of that being founded upon by the defendant, although it was said and meant at the time. The person concerned might have no idea that a liability might be established and that a genuine action for damages to recover costs and losses might be proper and competent.
This is a straightforward amendment. If we insert the words
in the knowledge that an action for damages has been raised or is in contemplation
to make it clear that the express agreement to take nothing should be in that state of knowledge, that will simplify the situation and remove the possibility of some form of injustice resulting from a well-intentioned and useful reform in clause 8.
I offer the Solicitor-General those two possible solutions. I like the first, but I understand that there may be technical difficulties. In that case, I hope that amendment No. 8 will find favour with him.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): It is worth going back to the origin of the clause and the part of the proviso to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred. Report No. 51 of the Scottish Law Commission, on which this clause is based, says in the explanatory note:
To preclude any argument that the relative must be deemed to have tacitly waived any right to remuneration or repayment of his expenses, the subsection provides that the right arises unless the relative has expressly agreed that no payment should be made.
I am not sure whether it will help the House if the hon. Gentleman and I swap examples of domestic dialogue in Scotland and concoct sets of circumstances in which agreement may or may not have been given. I accept that there is a need to improve the wording of the clause to clarify what is envisaged. In the circumstances, I am more attracted to amendment No. 8, which inserts the words:
in the knowledge that an action for damages has been raised or is in contemplation.
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of the fond aunt looking after the disabled nephew. If she said "I do not expect anything for doing this", I do not think that she


would be trapped if the wording of amendment No. 8 were introduced, because such an offer would not necessarily have been made
in the knowledge that an action for damages has been raised or is in contemplation".
That is a more attractive and sensible arrangement than the scheme envisaged in the other two amendments.
I have looked at what the Scottish Law Commission said in its report. I do not think that it is dealing with the point that the hon. Gentleman seems to think. My broader concern about the proposals in amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relates to the written consent. I do not want to concoct elaborate examples, but it is not difficult to envisage in the aunt-nephew relationship that the aunt may have incurred considerable expense but is not in a mental state to give her written consent or, alternatively, has died.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman thought that it was proper that the claim should not be transmissible to her estate after her death. If the suggested wording were adopted, it would effectively preclude the claim being transmissible if for one reason or another the aunt had not given her written consent before she died. The Scottish Law Commission envisaged that the written consent would occur not just when litigation was in contemplation but possibly when it had reached an advanced stage—when the head of claim had been calculated and the amount of the claim had been sorted out. I hope that by indicating to the hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to accept amendment No. 8 he will be prepared to withdraw the other two amendments. In any event he is bound to withdraw one of the two groups.

Mr. Dewar: I am quite happy to do that. I am not entirely sure that the Solicitor-General is right. The claim is made by the injured party or the injured person, not by the relative. I can see that the injured party's right under clause 8 might go if he did not have the written consent of the relative. Therefore, that might be a technical difficulty with amendments Nos. 11 and 12. As I am delighted to have achieved an improvement with amendment No. 8, I shall not stick obstinately by amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I put them up as alternatives and it would be churlish to complain when one of my propositions has found favour with the Minister.
I hope I shall not strain your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did elaborately say at the beginning that we were taking the three amendments that we have dealt with plus amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I then very carefully did not say anything about amendments Nos. 13 and 14 when I made my opening remarks. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like briefly to mention them so that we can have the Solicitor-General's views upon them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very unusual. I must thank the hon. Member for mentioning that they were grouped with amendment No. 11. However, I think perhaps he should proceed.

Mr. Dewar: I must apologise because I spoke at length on the first three amendments in the group and forgot that we were dealing with amendments Nos. 13 and 14 at the same time. I should like to have the Solicitor-General's views on amendment No. 13. It is an important amendment and one that has been argued very strongly to me by various members of the legal profession in Scotland. The amendment refers to clause 10 which states:

Subject to any agreement to the contrary, in assessing the amount of damages payable to the injured person…
It then goes on to say what can be deducted and what cannot be deducted from those damages. Amendment No. 13 inserts the words "for loss of earnings".
It may be that this is unnecessary because that is what is intended, but my understanding of the present law of Scotland is that deductions can be made from damages that are awarded—for example, for benefits. I shall come to the way it is done in a moment. That can happen only if there is a loss of earnings element in the damages that are being awarded. Let us take as an example someone who has been awarded damages for solatium only and, as is commonly the case, has received industrial injury benefit. There would be no deduction in respect of that industrial injury benefit from the solatium. The deduction would take place only if, in the award of damages, there was an element for loss of earnings.
I may be misinformed about this as I cannot claim to be a reparations expert, but that is my understanding of the law. It has been out to me clearly by a number of firms which specialise in this field that unless the words "for loss of earnings" are inserted into the Act in the way that I am trying to do, it may be that the classes of benefit which are referred to as being possible deductions from damages may be deducted where there is no loss of earnings factor but where we are considering purely and simply solatium.
This is not uncommon these days because with the growth of sickness payment from firms it is common to have a substantial sum of solatium awarded, but no actual loss of earnings, because other benefits and so on have obliterated the wage loss. But that person might still be receiving industrial injury benefit because that is a statutory right. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a matter of substance on which I should like his guidance.
The possible deductions that may be taken into account are earnings from employment, unemployment benefit, and
any benefit referred to in paragraph (c) above payable in respect of any period prior to the date of the award of damages.
All those would fall clearly as categories that would be appropriate to deduct from loss of earnings. Clause (iv) worries me, and it may be that I have come to the crux of
the difficulty. It states:
any payment of a benevolent character made to the injured person or to any relative of his by the responsible person following on the injuries in question".
I am not clear what this payment is. It is presumably a case where someone will go to his injured employee and say "I am sorry that this has all happened. I know you have considerable difficulties. Here is £500 to see you through your troubles." That is the payment of a benevolent character. That again would be fairly only taken into account in terms of deduction where there was a loss of earnings element.
8.15 pm
I do not want to be ungracious about clause 10. On the whole, it is a good and useful clause and an important one for the reasons I have outlined. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be able to answer a technical question about it. I am concerned with the deductions which are possible under paragraph (iii) and which can be taken into account. It reads:
any benefit referred tc in paragraph (c) above payable in respect of any period prior to the date of the award of damages".


It seems to suggest that in Scotland at the moment if there is a damages award, it is possible to make a deduction of 100 per cent. of the benefits referred to in paragraph (c) up to the date of the award of damages. As I understand it, that is a very substantial change in the present practice of the Scottish courts. I understand that at present they refer to or rely on section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which allows deduction not of 100 per cent. of benefit but 50 per cent. of benefit.
The really important words are
one half of the value of any rights which have accrued or probably will accrue to him therefrom in respect of…the five years beginning with the time when the cause of action accrued.
Does clause 10, in effect, obliterate section 2 of the 1948 Act in relation to Scotland? The section in the 1948 Act is not specifically repealed in the Bill, perhaps because it applies to England as well. It is not repealed specifically in regard to Scotland.
It is a good pursuer's point, for although under the new arrangement there will be a 100 per cent. set-off, it is 100 per cent. of the benefit only to the date of award of the damages. That will be a considerable advantage to the pursuer, for at the moment the deduction is only 50 per cent. of the benefit, but it is the benefit for a five-year period. If a man is getting benefit at the rate of £2,000 a year —he could be getting that as a result of several allowances such as the special hardship allowance and the industrial injury allowance—50 per cent. of it is £1,000, and for five years it will be £5,000, so we are looking at a very substantial reduction to offset against any potential loss of earnings under the present system.
I may be chasing a non-issue but it is important to understand exactly what is envisaged. Am I right in thinking that the powers in section 2 of the 1948 Act are to be overtaken and ruled out in Scotland? If they are not to be ruled out, what is the position? The Solicitor-General is indicating that he will explain the point, so I will not pursue it further. It is an important point. My other point concerns the loss of earnings, dealt with in the specific amendment now before the House.
Amendment No. 14 is an invitation to the House to take out clause 11. Clause 11 was not debated in Committee, and I take my share of responsibility for that. It reads:
In an action for damages for personal injuries…any saving to the injured person which is attributable to his maintenance wholly or partly at public expense in a hospital, nursing home or other institution shall be set off against any income lost by him as a result of the injuries.
I can envisage considerable problems as to how the clause will work and how it will be possible to quantify the savings that an individual has made. I presume that the point of clause 11—there is an English equivalent in clause 5, as has been pointed out already—is that someone may be permanently in hospital and in an almost vegetable state as a result of his injuries, so that the money will be held in trust and will ultimately go to his dependants and relatives. It might fairly be said that that should be taken into account in deciding the size of the damages.
Suppose, for example, that Mr. X has had a bad motor accident for which he will get damages. He is in traction in hospital for three months. Are we to be in a position in which it may be argued "We have to offset against his loss of earnings or income the fact that he was not being fed out of the family budget, he was being cared for by the State, therefore we ought to examine what he spent in his

house in the normal week on food and take 25 per cent. of that figure and aggregate that up and set it off against his income." Should the fact that he is not running his car and using petrol be considered? The possibilities are endless. There are real difficulties. One of the senior partners of a well-known Edinburgh law firm that specialises in this work writes to me:
The mind boggles as to how this section will be interpreted 'and how it will be possible to assess any saving".
He tells me it may cause many problems and a great deal of difficulty for judges in settling actions. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland can help me on these important matters.

The Solicitor-General For Scotland: I shall first deal with the general purpose of clause 10 and the hon. Gentleman's proposal to include the words "loss of earnings". If the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the main point originally, he did at the end of his speech when he concentrated on what is set out in clause 10(4). It relates to payment of a benevolent character made to the injured person or any relative by the responsible person following the injury, where the payment is made directly. In those circumstances, the payment that is or might be made is not necessarily for loss of earnings.
The case in Scotland where the issue arose most sharply followed the disaster at Ibrox football ground where the members of the public donated money to help those who had been injured or the families of those who had died. Rangers football club also made a contribution. In making such contributions the people concerned were not doing so solely for those who had sustained loss of earnings. The payment might simply be for solatium, injuries that they had suffered—for example, payment to a child for limbs that had been broken.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it was a matter of public policy and in the public interest that such payments should be made in advance of a court action. It was understood that if no provision were to be made for the payment to be deducted at a later date in court in the event of an award of damages being made, wrongdoers might be dissuaded from participating in such schemes or from making payments directly to those injured.
Although the hon. Gentleman rightly perceives that generally the items to be deducted are sums that are to be set against that head of claim, which is loss of earnings, it is not exclusively so, as paragraph (iv) shows. A payment might rightly be made to someone who has not suffered any loss of earnings, but who may nevertheless have a very good claim for the personal injuries that he or she has sustained.

Mr. Dewar: I suspected that paragraph (iv) presented a difficulty, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland rightly guessed. It might reasonably be set against both solatium and the loss of earnings element in a total damages award. What worries me is that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be saying that because of the way the paragraphs have been drafted, the first three relating to earnings, unemployment benefit and benefit up to the date of the award of damages, which have always been recognised and are specifically stated in the 1948 Act to be sums which could be set against any loss of earnings or profits, can now be set off against solatium. Is that the position? If it is not, my worry largely flies off.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman's anxiety is unfounded. The purpose of a claim for damages is to put the injured person into the position that he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. Separate heads make up the total claim for damages. One may be loss of earnings and another could be the compensation due for the loss of a limb or whatever. The hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily anxious.
I resist the inclusion of the proposed words because they would make a nonsense of subsection (4). I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that his anxiety that there could be a setting off against another head of damages is unfounded.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. If he had looked at my amendments he would have noticed that provision is made to clarify the point that worried him. I shall explain the matter when we reach amendment No. 3. It should cause no difficulty.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to leave out clause 11. Clause 5 in part I of the Bill contains the same provision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clause 11 provides that in any action under Scots law for damages for personal injuries, any saving to the injured person, attributable to his maintenance wholly or partly at public expense in a hospital, nursing home or other institution, shall be set off against any income lost by him as a result of his injuries.
There is no question of offsetting the full cost of the maintenance, but only the saving to him—the element of his living expenses which no longer has to be met out of his own pocket while he is being looked after in a public institution.
That provision is exactly the same as that made in clause 5. The hon. Member for Garscadden seems to think that it will cause great difficulties. That remains to be seen, but I do not believe that it should cause problems. The way that clause 5 was accepted for England, Wales and Northern Ireland shows that the provision is broadly acceptable for the rest of the country.

Mr. Dewar: I am not happy about what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said. The fact that the English have a similar clause to clause 11 is not necessarily a persuasive argument. It is important if it is necessary for the law of England and Scotland to be on all fours for practical reasons, but that argument does not apply here. The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his colleagues did not raise questions on clause 5 does not preclude arguments in the Scottish context.
It is all very well for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to say that he does not think that there will be much difficulty and that it is just a matter of calculating the savings. Minds more ingenious that his or mine will spend much time worrying about how to quantify the savings in a family budget that result from the breadwinner being in hospital. I could hold up the House for many a happy hour by constructing various possibilities. I shall spare hon. Members that, but I regard the Government's proposal as unsatisfactory. It is a piece of pettifogging legislation which has little to do with the practicalities of the law of damages in Scotland.
As to amendment No. 13, I accept reluctantly that the phrase "for loss of earnings" must be removed because of

the example of the Ibrox disaster. It would be futile of me to insist on those words, given the present forces in the House. However, I am not clear about amendment No. 13. If a public fund is set up, as in the Ibrox disaster, it might be appropriate that the proceeds divided among the injured persons should be offset against a solatium figure. The public may not realise that they are donating money not to injured persons but to the insurance company that will withstand the loss. The Solicitor-General argues that that is not so, but it is inescapable.
8.30 pm
The first three headings are appropriate to be earmarked for offset against loss of earnings. However, once the proposal is on the statute book, if someone is receiving unemployment benefit and we decide that the 100 per cent. deduction up to tie award of damages is a substantial point, will it be possible to offset that against solatium if there is no award for loss of earnings? If the answer is "No", that is fair enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Dewar: I had hoped that the Solicitor-General would clarify the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 8, in page 8, line 14, after 'agreed', insert
'in the knowledge that an action for damages has been raised or
is in contemplation. '—[Mr. Dewar.]

Clause 9

>SERVICES TO INJURED PERSON'S RELATIVE

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'person' to 'a' in line 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 9.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Under section 2(1) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 an injured person's right to raise and pursue an action for damages passes to the executor of his estate on the death of that injured person. It is intended that clauses 8, 9 and 12 should be subject to the same rule. No specific provision to that effect is believed to be needed in part II of the Bill. The existing reference to that rule in clause 9 is correct, but if it remains in tile Bill it might be thought that the rule did not apply to daises 8 and 12. In the circumstances it is felt that silence on the point would be the least confusing course.
Government amendment No. 9 is a drafting amendment to satisfy the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and makes it clear that the "inability" in line 29 refers to the injured person and not to the responsible person.

Mr. Dewar: I welcome both those amendments, which are splendid in their way. The amendment that deletes the reference to the executor's rights follows an amendment, that I made in Committee to clause 8. The Minister said that he would consider the need for that, but he has obviously approached it from the other end, to which I make no objection, and has excised the provision from clause 9 rather than added it to clause 8. As to amendment


No. 9, I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on his return to Scottish politics with a notable triumph. It is a good Social Democratic amendment. It is pedantic, nice and of not much practical importance.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'his inability' and insert
'the inability of the injured person'.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 18, after 'funds', insert
'other than any pension or benefit to which section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 applies'.
The amendment is intended to remove any doubt as to the effect of section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 upon invalidity pensions in assessing damages. It is thought to be right that United Kingdom social security benefits should be treated in the same way throughout the United Kingdom. The amendment ensures that this is achieved. The matter of the provisions of the 1948 Act has already come up in relation to earlier amendments. I said that I thought that this was the most appropriate point to deal with them.
I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that with regard to clause 10, the compromise arrangements that are set out in the 1948 Act whereby half the benefits are taken into account, or deducted, are unaltered. The earlier parts of clause 10, paragraphs (a) to (f), set out the types of benefit that are not to be taken into account in reducing the amount. It is important that that should be clearly understood. It is only later in clause 10, paragraphs (i) to (iv), that we find those matters that are to be deducted.
There is now essentially a three-part scheme. If it falls in paragraphs (a) to (f) it is not deducted. If it falls in paragraphs (i) to (iv) it is deducted in entirety. If it is a type of benefit that falls within sectionss 2 of the 1948 Act, half the amount of the benefit, if the particular time limitations set out in that Act are met, are deducted.
I hope that that puts the matter beyond any doubt, and that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General for Scotland sometimes gives the impression that he is teaching a remedial class. That may be my fault, or a tribute to my obstinacy. The matter is not clear but I shall study hard in the future.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland has said that paragraphs (a) to (f) are not deductible—that is crystal clear. He has said that paragraphs (i) to (iv) in clause 10 are 100 per cent. deductible in the way that is described there. Thereafter, section 2(1) of the 1948 Act still exists. We shall be looking at the five-year period, and 50 per cent. of the expected yield over that period, as a deduction from loss of earnings.
As I understand section 2(1), that means that sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, non-contributory invalidity pension, injury benefit and disablement benefit are delisted, because they are still listed in the 1948 Act. Therefore, they will be at 50 per cent. for the five-year period. I see that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is nodding.
Some of the people to whom I have been talking, who know their stuff about reparation in Scotland, had formed the impression that this was a good thing for pursuers because the five-year calculation would no longer be relevant. Clearly, they have been suffering from a misapprehension. I suspect that from the point of view of the pursuer, clause 10 is nothing like as fortunate or generous a provision as was first thought. That is something we should consider at more length. Perhaps I can discuss it with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a later occasion.
At this stage, I merely note what the Solicitor-General for Scotland says, without a great deal of enthusiasm.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

SUPPLEMENTARY

Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 29, at end insert—
'(aa) any person, not being the spouse of the injured person, who was, at the time of the act or omission giving rise to liability in the responsible person, living with the injured person as husband or wife;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 10.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These two amendments are possibly the most important of the amendments that I am moving. They follow the Government's further consideration of the scope of relatives for the purposes of an action for damages. It was concluded that as a significant minority of caring and stable relationships now exist outside marriage, it would be unjust to deny to an injured person's—albeit unmarried—partner the right to damages. In order to be consistent the same extension is applied to the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 as to part II of the Bill, in respect of damages for both loss of support, which may be claimed by relatives of the deceased, and loss of society, which are restricted to claims from the immediate family.
As hon. Members will be aware, a similar amendment has been made in the other place to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for England and Wales. This is one area in which I think that it is right that the two laws should keep in step in recognising the position of cohabiting couples. They will differ in terms of drafting. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will appreciate that the Scottish amendment seeks to reflect the wording employed in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
Although the amendment is small it is important, and I hope that it will be generally welcomed by the House.

Mr. Dewar: The most important amendments are not always the longest. I agree with the Solicitor-General for Scotland that this is a matter of some moment. It is another step on a road down which we have travelled fairly fast in recent years in Scottish law, whereby we have put cohabitees, at least in some ways, in the position of a spouse. On the whole, although I know that some people have reservations, it is the right direction to take.
The amendment was introduced in response to debates in Committee on 6 July 1982, c. 26–9. Some of us asked, not just for a broadening of the term "relative"—we were arguing a case that originally appeared in Pearson, if I remember correctly—but that claims that appear in clauses


8 and 9 should be available for the loss of any third party, not merely a relative. That found no favour with the Government, and it is now water under the bridge. As second best, the suggestion was that the cohabitee should be put on the same footing as other relatives who were covered by clauses 8 and 9. In fact, the Government have gone considerably further than that, in that they have made a similar change in the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.
I want to raise two small matters with the Solicitor-General for Scotland. One concerns definition. He mentioned the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act and the definition of cohabitee there. Clearly, it is somewhat different from the situation in England. Under the new section 1(3)(b)(iii) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, set out in clause 3(1), a definition includes a period of two years together as a precondition of being accepted as a cohabitee. I assume that we do not need anything like two years. It is a matter of the facts that are before the court, and the standard of proof will be very much like a marriage of habit and repute, which is now seldom used, but its occasional appearance is perhaps to establish the right to sue. That will now not be necessary. In a sense, this will become the establishment of a marriage of habit and repute, or the supposition of one, which will be challengeable in terms of objecting to the competency of this head of claim. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
The second minor point is again a matter of detail, but it is one of more substance on which I hope the Solicitor-General for Scotland will give his views. At one point in Committee he said that we were putting ourselves very much in line with the English in this respect. Here there is an argument for doing that, because it would be unfortunate if a cohabitee in the same situation north and south of the border had different rights. Clause 3(4) says that in assessing damages for the person who is a cohabitee and whose action is founded on these provisions as a cohabitee, the court shall take into account
the fact that the dependant had no enforceable right to financial support by the deceased as a result of their living together.
It is clear that that is an attempt that must be taken by the couts as meaning that following the assessment of damages in England the cohabitee will get considerably less. They will have to take into account that there was no enforceable right of financial support. In Scotland there is, as I understand it, no similar weakening. Once the cohabitee has been accepted by the courts as being a cohabitee for the purposes of the Act, he or she will be treated in exactly the same way, when it comes to the assessment of damages or compensation under the 1976 Act, as a spouse. There is a sharp distinction between the English and Scottish positions and I am anxious to underline it as a matter of importance.
8.45 pm
No one can be certain about these things, but I am told that the going rate for an action under section 1 of the 1976 Act for loss of society is about £6,000 for a spouse. A recent Appeal Court judgment set the figure at about that level. Presumably the cohabitee is being dealt with on the same basis. As we do not have the statutory weakening of his cr her position that is present in the English legislation, presumably the Scottish courts will have to treat a cohabitee on all fours with a spouse. If cohabitees are dealt with in the same way when loss of support is considered,

we could be considering substantial amounts. There will not be a great many actions of this sort, but when they occur large sums could be at risk.
If an action is raised and it succeeds on the basis of a party being a cohabitee, am I right in thinking that in the absence of a weakening of the cohabitee's position on assessment of damages the courts will have to treat the cohabitee as if he or she were a spouse raising a similar action under section 1 the 1976 Act?
I welcome the provision to which the amendment is directed. It is clearly an attempt to bring the law of damages into line with social reality. We have been going down this road quite often recently. The Solicitor-General for Scotland referred to the matrimonial homes legislation, which gives cohabitees limited but important occupancy rights in homes which they have shared and of which they are cohabitees. I believe that it is proper that the law should take these matters into account.
I know that there will be those in Scotland who will see this approach as a blurring of the special distinctions of marriage and its entrenched position. They will consider that in a sense we are attacking the place of marriage in society by putting tie cohabitee, in a number of areas, in exactly the same position as a spouse. Someone argued to me forcefully that if we adopt this approach to the matrimonial home in terms of damages, actions and the death of a cohabitee, we should arrive at the position which they seem to have reached in America, often at ludicrous expense, of saying that if a man and and woman are living together, even if not in wedlock, they should be treated as if they are man and wife with all the rights that would follow upon a divorce. That lies, in a sense, at the end of the road that we are taking. That may be an argument for the future.
The modest change that we are making tonight will greatly strengthen :he position of a cohabitee whose partner has been killed and where liability may arise. The change can be fully justified and I make no complaint that it is being made. Indeed, I positively welcome it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is true that in what we are doing for Scotland we are not making elaborate provisions along the lines of those which have been provided for England and. Wales. It will be a matter of fact for the courts to determine. For Scotland the category of relative is being extended to include a cohabitee. In the 1976 Act the category of relative is extended to include a cohabitee or where the claim may be for loss of society to a member of the deceased's immediate family.
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is that yet again it is a matter of fact for the courts to determine because there is no rigid tariff in the Scottish or English courts to determine what is to be the award for loss of society to any member of the deceased's immediate family. The hon. Gentlman may be concerned about what is provided in the English part of the Bill in part I, but there in no comparable provision in the Scottish part of the Bill. It will be for the corms to sort out the matter as a matter of fact. I do not think that there is anything sinister about that, nor do I believe that there is anything for the hon. Gentleman to be unduly concerned about.

Mr. Dewar: I did not think that there was anything sinister. I hoped that there would be something positive. I took the fact that there was no such provision in Scots


law as a broad hint from the legislature, although I recognise that what happens in Parliament is not binding or necessarily persuasive in the courts. I hoped that the courts would take that omission as meaning that the cohabitee should be treated on all fours with the spouse for the purposes of any action under the Bill or the 1976 Act.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot elaborate on what I have already said. The court must look to the facts and circumstances. It must determine whethr the couple are cohabiting, the length of time they have cohabited and support that might be given. Matters such as that would have to weighed in the balance, as they are when one looks at the claim that a wife or other members of the family may have, after the husband has died. The extent of the claims of the immediate members of the family is determined. The amendment does not create any problems that do not exist already for the courts in trying to determine the appropriate level of an award.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS 1976 C. 13

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
'(4) In section 10(2) of the said Act of 1976 (Meaning of "deceased person's immediate family"), after the word "(a)" there shall be inserted the word "(aa)", and in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (a) the following— 
(aa) any person, not being the spouse of the deceased, who was, immediately before the deceased's death, living with the deceased as husband or wife ;". '.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland. ]

Clause 38

MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN COURT

Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
'(h) make provision for interest accruing from the investment of sums deposited with justices' clerks by way of security as a condition of bail' .
I ventured to raise this matter in Committee at the instance of the Justices' Clerks' Society. Clause 38 makes provision for interest on money deposited with justices' clerks. The amendment deals with a specific problem relating to that.
Sometimes as a condition of bail the accused is required to deposit a sum of money as security for his future attendance. That money may be held for many months. It may be a large sum. An experienced and conscientious clerk will place it on deposit. The question arises who is entitled to the interest. In Committee I referred to the Home Office's suggestion that it should accrue to public funds. However, that money belongs to the accused. It is not a fine. He has not been convicted of an offence. If he attends when he is required to do so, he has done nothing wrong.
In Committee the Solicitor-General said that the Government recognised the problem, but the suggestion in the amendment might not be the best way of dealing with it. I have never claimed infallibility for Opposition amendments. The Solicitor-General fairly said that he

would consult about the matter. The Opposition have tabled the amendment so that at least we may have a progress report on the consultations.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has brought this matter before the House again. The amendment is identical to one discussed in Committee, when he urged me to bring forward detailed proposals to deal with sums deposited by way of security for bail. I said that I would see what I could do. I do not have much to report, as the right course is by no means obvious. The Government wish to consider first whether it is right that interest should be paid on the sums we are talking about, bearing in mind that if it were to be paid as a matter of course there would certainly be some administrative and possibly financial consequences to be overcome by the magistrates courts.
Even if the answer in general to the preliminary question—I do not exclude the possibility that we may come to that conclusion—is that interest should be paid, other questions are bound to arise. What would happen when a defendant failed to surrender to custody having been granted bail on the deposit of a security? In such a case he would forfeit the principal sum making up the security. Is it appropriate that in such circumstances he should nevertheless benefit from the interest? Should the security be placed in an interest-bearing account in all cases, or should that be done only at the request of a defendant, or where the sum is greater than a certain figure, or if the date for the defendant's surrender to custody is long enough ahead to make it worth while placing the money in such an account? Should the regulations provide that all those factors be juggled in one combination or another? I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman well enough to know that he will agree that those are all matters that require considerable thought before any decision can be taken. He may say that we should have made up our minds on some method, but he also knows that it is easier to say that than to do it.
One has to identify first the areas of difficulty, and only after thinking about them carefully, decide how to deal with them. That is when one arrives at the stage of making the regulations. I say that, because the House should bear in mind the fact that in the amendment we are talking about the giving of a power to make regulations when the questions have been resolved. If it is decided that interest should be paid on sums deposited on security, the burden of operating the administrative arrangements will fall mainly on court staff. We shall therefore shortly be consulting the Justices' Clerks' Society to identify the practical difficulties which might be encountered by magistrates' courts. Consideration is being given also to the arrangements which might apply to money deposited at the Crown court.
I have tried to explain, as briefly as I can, that before we come to a conclusion we must consider those questions. Many other questions may be thrown up during our considerations. It might be said that even if all those matters have to be decided, why not have the rule-making power added by the amendment? I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. If we decide that the regulations might best be made under the present Bill, my view is that the clause is already sufficiently widely drawn to allow the making of such regulations. The Home Secretary has an alternative regulation-making power


under section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. He has used that power already to make the Justices' Clerks' (Accounts) Regulations 1973 relating to the keeping, inspecting and auditing of accounts for all sums received by a justices' clerk, other than sums for his own use.
We should wish to examine whether regulations in regard to interest on bail securities—if it be decided to make some—could not be better made under that power than under the powers contained in the present Bill. Whatever the answer, my advice to the House is that we already have adequate powers to make regulations to deal with the questions that the right hon. and learned Member has in mind.

9 pm

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for saying that there may be an alternative power. I shall not press him tonight to say that the power suggested in the amendment is necessarily preferable.
I find difficulty in seeing the argument that the interest should not normally be paid to the person who has been required to deposit the money. Up to that stage he is simply someone who has had the misfortune to be accused of a criminal offence. He may or may not be acquitted. But to suggest that because of that he should lose the use of his money for what may be a long period does not bear examination.
Different considerations will apply if, subsequently, he forfeits the principal sum, and a number of questions need to be decided which require careful thought. Having had experience of being where the Solicitor-General is now, I would not suggest that the matter should necessarily have been concluded over the Summer Recess, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will be in a position to give the House information in the not-too-distant future.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 39, line 30, leave out 'Part IV of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20.

The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are technical amendments relating to wills. I shall gladly explain their precise purpose and effect should anyone wish me to do so.
One advantage of our process of primary legislation is that it gives the opportunity to persons with special interest in or knowledge of the subject matter to study what is being done and to make suggestions while there is still time to implement them. In this instance we are much indebted to Professor Clark of Newcastle university, who drew attention to a number of highly technical considerations which have led to the making of these amendments.
Amendment No. 18 allows new regulations to be made governing the deposit and registration of wills. It puts right a technical defect.
Amendment No. 20 makes it clear that the provisions of the Bill dealing with commencement, extent and citation will enter into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:
No. 16, in page 39, line 34, at end insert—

'(d) section 72, so far as it relates—

(i) to the Wills Act Amendment Act 1852; and

(ii) to the Family Law Reform Act 1969,'.

No. 17, in page 39, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) Neither section 18(1) above nor the repeal by this Act of section 177 of the Law of Property Act 1925 affects a will made before the commencement of section 18(1) above'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 73

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made:

No. 18, in page 42, line 21, at end insert—

'(c) section 72. so far as it relates—

(i) to section 126 of the Supreme Court Act 1981; and

(ii) Article 27 of the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979'.

No. 20, in page 42, line 34, leave out from '61' to end of line 35 and insert—

'(f) section 62;

(g) this section;

(h) section 74; and

(j) section 75.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 74

EXTENT

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 43, leave out line 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 7.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a drafting amendment, which, with amendment No. 7, will clarify the way in which part VI, and in particular the functions of the Accountant General, will apply to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 7, in page 43, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Part II of this Act and section 26 above extend to Scotland only and Part VI of this Act applies to Scotland only to the extent specified in section 48 above'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, amendment No. 19, in page 68, line 10, leave out 'Justice' and insert `Estates'.
The purpose of the amendment is to correct the title of the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move,
That the Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
The code has been prepared jointly by my Department and those of my colleagues responsible for Scotland, Wales and agriculture in accordance with section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is intended to assist all those who exercise functions under sections 28 to 32 of the Act or who are affected by the exercise of those functions. The code will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. A separate Welsh language translation is also being prepared.
Hon. Members will remember that the concept of a code of practice, conduct or guidance, as it was variously called, evolved during consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill as the cornerstone of the voluntary approach to the protection of nature conservation habitats. Subsequently, the compulsory elements in the Act were also extended and therefore the code was required to explain the various statutory provisions relating to sites of special scientific interest embodied in the Act in addition to providing guidance on administrative procedure and the importance of conservation of special habitats.
My Department prepared the consultation draft of the code with the valuable assistance of the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and Timber Growers (Great Britain) Ltd., as well as the other Departments concerned, and I would like to take this belated opportunity to express my thanks particularly to those from outside Government for giving their time so readily in putting the document together. A public consultation exercise was then held from February to April this year. About 150 organisations were consulted and many of these made constructive comments and suggestions for changes, for which I am most grateful.
This enabled us to make a number of improvements in producing the text now before the House, which was finally laid on 5 July. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, myself included, regretted that because of the pressure of other parliamentary business there was not an opportunity to debate this matter before the Summer Recess as we had originally hoped and as I indicated earlier in the year.
I shall now describe the content of the code and comment on some of the main elements. If successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of the debate, I should like to make further comments on points that will undoubtedly be raised by hon. Members.
During the Committee debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services gave the following outline of what the code would contain:
The code will govern procedure. It will stress the importance of SSSIs and the need for conservation, and outline the consultation procedures that owners and occupiers will be urged to respect. The code would govern the NCC's duty to notify sites
of special scientific interest, the ways in which sites of special scientific interest are selected, the relationship between the code and existing consultation procedures, agricultural and forestry activities, agricultural and horticultural capital grant schemes, forestry grants, stressing the presumption that grants are put at

risk if prior consultation and agreement with the NCC is not reached before work is started, and the financial advantage that might accrue from SSSI ownership and management.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 June 1981; c. 454.]
That is what he said. The version before the House today adheres closely to that initial concept debated so lengthily during the spring and summer of 1981.
This has been no easy task. The statutory provisions in the Act and the various related grant arrangements are themselves complex and it would have been of little benefit to anyone if these had not been explained comprehensively. Therefore, although the text attempts to convey the necessary information concisely and in layman's language, there are limits beyond which the search for simplicity can be pushed only at the expense of accuracy and reliability. I know also that the code may be longer than some people had hoped, but I can assure hon. Members that I have given much thought to this subject and that I do not believe that any significant reduction in the length of the code could be achieved without serious disadvantage.
The introduction to the code emphasises the importance of SSSIs and seeks to impress on all those who may be involved in SSSIs that their conservation and proper management is vital to the maintenance of Britain's diverse wildlife. The House may have noticed that Government Departments have been specifically mentioned. This is because I believe it is essential that, if we are to expect the private sector to co-operate with the voluntary spirit which is essential to the proper working of the SSSI provisions in the Act, Government must set the example.
The second section of the code deals with the procedure by which the NCC notifies SSSIs and deals separately with the provisions which apply to SSSIs already in existence before the passing of the Act and those which apply to new SSSIs. SSSIs notified before the passing of the Act—of which there are about 4,000—remain extant, but the NCC is now required to specify any potentially damaging operations on each site and to inform every owner and occupier of the location and scientific interest of the SSSIs on his land and to provide a list of these operations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister tell us specifically how many extra staff and how much extra money the NCC has to carry out this task?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from answers that I and my right hon. Friend have given in the past year that the grant to the NCC has been increased by some £600,000. It is, of course, very much for the NCC to decide how that money should be spent, but no doubt some of it will find its way into this type of preservation. The House will not expect me to anticipate further bids and what might occur in the next year, but at present the council's resources represent the better part of 550 working people within the NCC, and they are currently engaged in assessing exactly what the extent of the work must be. With regard to the dialogue between myself and the chairman of the NCC, the door is ever open for him to come and make bids and to tell us exactly what his problems are.

Mr. John Garrett: Is not the NCC already the victim or about to become the victim of a Rayner exercise aimed at substantially reducing its staff?

Mr. Macfarlane: The current staff of the NCC is 535. It has been reduced from about 590 in the past two or three years. They have a great deal of work to do and it serves no good purpose for the hon. Gentleman to start making observations of that kind until he is absolutely certain of his facts.

Mr. John Garrett: rose

Mr. Macfarlane: If I may proceed now, I shall listen to the points raised in the debate, but I have a number of things to say.
The code contains advice to owners and occupiers on how to proceed in the interim.
Turning to the new SSSIs, the Act now requires the NCC to give notice of its intention to notify a site and to consider any representations or objections before making a final decision. That is the essential difference between the old and the new SSSIs. As with the old SSSIs that have not yet been formally re-notified, so with the new SSSIs the code urges owners and occupiers not to carry out any potentially damaging operation during the proposal period.
Further paragraphs outline the way in which the NCC will go about listing potentially damaging operations, the registration of SSSIs as a land charge and the procedures to be adopted when owners and occupiers cannot be traced and when SSSI status is to be removed. A separate paragraph is devoted to statutory undertakers, whom the NCC will inform of SSSI details that may concern their operations.
The functions of the NCC are, of course, matched by the duty on owners and occupiers of SSSIs to consult the council if they wish to carry out any operation that might harm the site. Section III of the code deals with procedures for giving notice of intended operations, including the statutory obligations on owners and occupiers, and also the steps to be taken when farm capital grant or forestry grant is to be applied for. In the case of farm capital grant, the procedures dovetail with the arrangements that have been successfully operated by the agriculture Departments since October 1980. I should like to draw attention to two aspects of them.
First, the Act specifies in section 32 that the NCC is obliged to offer to enter into a management agreement where agricultural grants made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 are refused in consequence of an objection by it. The point here is that there are other similar farm capital grants—for instance, under EEC arrangements—that are not covered by that Act. To provide parity of treatment, the NCC has agreed that it will offer a management agreement where any farm capital grants are refused in consequence of its objection. Secondly, the procedures reflect a greater involvement for the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in the process, which is in line with its commitment to further conservation.
Similarly in the case of forestry, although not required to do so by the Act, the NCC has said that it will normally offer to enter into a management agreement where forestry grant and/or felling permission is refused on conservation grounds.
The next section on information helpful to the NCC has been included to encourage owners and occupiers to assist in the NCC's need to have up-to-date information on the scientific interest of a site, on ownership details or on operations undertaken by third parties.
Section 5 deal:; with conservation options and explains the purpose of management agreements and the circumstances in which the NCC may, or is obliged to, offer them. Hon. Members will know that the Act also specifies that Ministers prepare financial guidelines on which the compensation provided by management agreements must be based in certain circumstances. A draft of the financial guidelines is at present the subject of a public consultation exercise. The closing date for receipt of comments is this coming Friday, and we shall of course need to study the responses with the utmost care.
However, we recognise the need to finalise the guidelines as speedily as possible. When that has been done sections 32 and 41 of the Act will be brought into force. In the interim, I know that the NCC has made arrangements to review the financial terms of any agreements entered into before the guidelines become available.
The final section deals with the provisions for special protection for certain areas—that is sections 29 to 31 of the Act—which allow for the making of nature conservation orders and provide for compensation or restoration in certain circumstances. Those provisions came into force on 6 September. The code explains the purposes of making orders, the details of how they will work, the circumstances in which compulsory purchase may be used—very much a last resort I hasten to add—and the procedure for making and advertising orders, for making representations and objections and for holding inquiries or hearings. Compensation arrangements are also explained, as are offences and penalties.
That, in brief, summarises what the code contains. It is a comprehensive procedural guide to that part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which deals with SSSIs and the various associated administrative processes. Once it is approved the code will be printed and distributed free to all owners and occupiers of SSSIs by the NCC as part of its re-notification exercise. It will be available also through HMSO at a price of about £2.
SSSIs are a vital part of our national heritage and the observance of the voluntary arrangements embodied in the code as well as of the legal obligations to which it refers, is critical to their protection. I have no doubt that most of those who are privileged to have such a site on their land welcome the opportunity to cherish it. Failure to do so, whether deliberately or by inadvertence, will, I hope, be rare and should certainly be minimised by the code, which I commend to the House, as well as to all those owners, occupiers and agencies who may in any way be involved in the management and protection of those sites.

Mr. Ted Graham: I am sure that the House will appreciate that by a quirk of the parliamentary timetable we have a little more time to debate the matter than we might otherwise have had.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Not enough time.

Mr. Graham: That is right. There are present tonight a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House who served in Committee, and also others who have a strong interest in the subject. The House should be grateful for their presence.
Those of us who had the pleasure of helping to pilot the Bill through the House and who served in Committee will


have some abiding memories. One of mine is the deep and intense interest that was shown not only by individuals representing the conservation lobbies but by millions of other individuals. I have pleasant memories of the helpfulness of their comments, both in Committee and elsewhere. They demonstrated to me and to others who came rather late to that aspect of our work the vital interest, importance and value of the subject to millions of people. I thank those individuals and organisations, not merely for their help during the passage of the Bill, but for helping me to prepare myself for this debate.
Another of my abiding memories is the constant battle by those same groups and individuals, aided and abetted by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to press for greater statutory and legal protections, while the Government and those they listened to outside the House put their faith in voluntarism. The Government won, and tonight we discuss one of the first products of that victory—the code of practice for SSSI procedures. The Opposition will not oppose the passage of this code, but there are many questions that we want to ask.
One of the measuring rods was stated with clarity and simplicity in a definitive statement issued by the Nature Conservancy Council on 10 August of this year. When dealing specifically with its responsibilities for SSSIs, it said:
The Act's effectiveness will depend upon the willingness of owners and occupiers to enter into management agreements and upon the NCC being provided with adequate funds to finance these.
Many a weary hour was spent in Committee and on the Floor of the House in trying to persuade the Minister that voluntary action was not enough, even allowing for the good will of many landowners and farmers. We argued that the ultimate, sometimes immediate, force of law was the only way to safeguard our national heritage. The faith of Ministers in relying on a spirit of conservation overcoming the lure of filthy lucre, whether from the Common Market or direct from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was touching in the extreme. Supported by virtually the whole conservation lobby, my right hon. and hon. Friends sought to strengthen the projected code of practice.
The Minister then in charge of the Act—the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), whom I am delighted to see in his place—waxed indignant in giving short shrift to what he regarded as the ludicrous assertion that such occupiers may take advantage of loopholes in the Act. He said that
amendment (c) to amendment No. 215 seeks to prevent a situation whereby the moment the NCC even hints that it is thinking of having an SSSI, out come the bulldozers and the drainage equipment and away we go …There is no evidence that immediately any farmer or landowner is approached his worst instincts are aroused.—[Official Report, 13 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 922.]
I can understand the Minister having no evidence then, but he must have much evidence now. Under section 28(2)(b) the NCC must allow at least three months for consultation, and during that period there is no legal restraint on the destruction of the scientific interest of the site. That thwarts the intention of the Act.
What will the Minister do about such a situation? Let me give some examples that have been given to me, but they could well be queried by the evidence that the Minister possesses. I shall be delighted to listen to him.
My first example concerns West Sedgemoor in Somerset, which the Minister must know personally. Since 1978 this has been the subject of agreements between the NCC and MAFF, which made a number of capital improvement scheme grants. This spring the NCC, relying upon the powers in the Act and using the new procedures, began to designate this site as an SSSI. Almost immediately three landowners began damaging pump drainage schemes affecting 50 acres in the heart of the moor. That scheme, although opposed by the NCC, is now completed.
The farmers did not act illegally, but used the legal loophole that safeguard provisions do not apply until a site has been confirmed as an SSSI. Section 29—holding the fort for a further 12 months—was not in force, so it could not be used. How widely or sparingly does the Minister intend to support the NCC's request to invoke section 29?
The first test of the Minister's intentions in this matter will come next week when the Secretary of State has to consider the request of the NCC for the 12 months' procedure for Battersley Woods in Hampshire. From the consultations that I have had with conservation organisations I know that there is a suspicion—no more—that the Government intend to use the powers of section 29 sparingly. I hope not. Why legislate, create an impression of protection and of legal sanction and then run away? The power of section 29 is there to be used. I believe that any potential SSSI considered for designation must be eligible for section 29 protection. Will the Minister confirm and agree to that premise?
Ripon parks in Yorkshire is an even more breathtaking illustration of what is seriously amiss both with the spirit of voluntaryism and the effect of the legislation. Ripon parks is an area of ancient flower meadows managed by the Property Services Agency, which, as the House knows, is part of the Department of the Environment empire. It was to be one of the first for designation under the new procedures. When one of the three farms was to be relet in March 1982, the NCC requested that the reletting be postponed until the notification procedure operated. The PSA refused. The NCC wanted to talk to the prospective tenant and asked for his name. Again the PSA refused. Within days of the new tenant being in possession he was notified of the intended designation, but within a matter of weeks he had ploughed up 16 acres of the best meadow land and treated a further 40 acres with herbicides and fertilisers. It was legal and approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—it was an increase in the acreage of arable land—but disastrous for conservation. That land was particularly wrecked.
I have illustrations from a number of cases to which I am sure other hon. Members will refer. I merely mention them in passing—Walland marsh in Kent, Halvergate marshes in Norfolk, the Berwyn mountains in Wales, Derwent Ings in Yorkshire, Pevensey levels in Sussex, the Stort valley in Hefts and Essex and riverside sites in Norfolk and Leicestershire. I am told that there is grave danger and concern that the procedures which the code and the Bill are designed to protect are in serious danger because of the lack of effectiveness. The key to making the Act effective, as with much else, is the level of financial support. As the NCC is the chosen instrument, it is crucial that it is not only maintained and expanded, but is given specific grants to fulfil its responsibilities for SSSIs.
We all know that that task is daunting. The remit before the NCC is enormous. The Minister has been fair to the House. He has given the House a wide range, not only of that for which the NCC is presently responsible, but the additional duties that will fall on the NCC as a result of our debate tonight. The NCC tells us that if it does its job properly merely to carry out the additional duties it will have to visit and discuss matters with more than 30,000 people, which is quite beyond its resources.
The National Farmers Union, in a brief which many hon. Members received today, puts the dilemma fairly succinctly. It states:
Farmers are highly sensitive to the receipt of legalistic documentation concerning their farms. Misunderstandings and loss of farming goodwill have already occurred where notifications from the NCC have not been backed up by visits to the farms by the NCC field staff with the ability to explain the Council's intentions to farmers and allay their fears. Whilst the Code should help here, there is no substitute for a dialogue between the NCC and the farmer on the farm; this may well mean that Government will have to find more resources to provide additional NCC staff if its own legislation is to be successful.
In the long, distant days when the Government still required parliamentary support to get the Wildlife and the Countryside Bill on to the statute book, Ministers in both Houses gave assurances and tried to assuage any fears of inadequate financing with smooth promises that all would be well. In another place, Lord Avon, speaking for the Government, said:
The point has been made repeatedly that the success of conservation work will depend to a large extent on the funds which are available and, especially, on the amount of money which is available to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Later in the debate, Lord Avon said:
The Government recognise that additional tasks will devolve upon the NCC as a result of the passage of the Bill through this House… I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take these additional tasks into account when considering the NCC's future level of grant.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1981; Vol. 419, c. 93-104.]
If that is to be taken as a manifest of the Government's intention, let us look at what precisely has happened. The grant for the NCC for 1981-82 was £10,047,000. Simply to allow for maintaining normal activities, this year's grant should have been raised to £10,670,000. The NCC asked that that be increased by between £950,000 and £1,130,000 to take account of its additional duties under the Act.
As the Minister has already said, the NCC received an additional £600,000, but, as Lord Avon said on 11 February in reply to a parliamentary question—and as the Minister has confirmed—the difference of £600,000 between the two figures does not mean that that sum has been allocated specifically for new responsibilities. The grant-in-aid will cover the whole range of the council's activities and it will be for the council to decide how to distribute the fund among them.
In the light of the range of additional duties and the considerable increase in staff required to carry out those duties, we are now being told by the Government that the additional figure is £600,000—a measly figure—and it is woefully inadequate, even before the NCC begins to look at the task.
The number of NCC staff is already fewer than is required to do the job. The Minister knows—as do those hon. Members who are interested—that there is a particular shortage of assistant regional officers and land agents, upon whom most of the SSSI work will fall. The

Minister also knows that there are no AROs in Lincolnshire or Warwickshire. Lincolnshire has lost 50 per cent. of its ancient grasslands in the last few years. Fifteen SSSIs are under threat from forestry operations.
The Minister knows that the chairman of the NCC has announced that if effective conservation is to continue under the new Act, at least an additional £20 million will be needed over the next 10 years. To treat the NCC in such a way is a lousy start to a dialogue between the Government and the NCC.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—I am delighted to see him in his place—told the House on 27 April 1981 that every year, on average, at least 8,700 hectares of SSSI land were damaged and that at least 2,400 hectares were destroyed every year. Does the Minister really comprehend the money that will be needed by the NCC if it is remotely to arrest that vandalism and desecration of our heritage?
Taking the NCC figure that 12,000 acres a year need to be safeguarded, either by management agreements or outright purchase, and assuming £1,000 an acre for purchase and £80 to £100 an acre for management agreements, the :NCC will require almost £4 million for those purposes alone. What will happen? Without adequate finance, the Nature Conservancy Council will continue to refrain from objecting to all but the most serious threats and sites will be lost by default. There is anxiety and unease among conservationists that the NCC, faced with the real dilemma of committing huge proportions of inadequate funds to one or two very costly sites, has to forgo designations that it should pursue.
Will the Minister say something about the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Under the code, the Minister of Agriculture, in considering grant applications,
has a duty to exercise his functions so as to further conservation of the special features of SSSIs so far as is consistent with the purposes of the grant scheme".
The Under-Secretary referred to section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. The Minister can see the nonsense of the Ministry of Agriculture financially assisting farmers to destroy an SSSI with taxpayers' money, so will he get his Department to withhold grants for work on threatened SSSIs? Otherwise, the code will be a paper tiger.
I shall illustrate the dilemma that faces the Nature Conservancy Council. Walland marsh lies south of the village of Brookland on Romney marsh. It is a core area of 142 acres. There are unique flora and fauna that provide the habitat for nine bird species listed in schedule 1 of the Act, including the blacktailed godwit, the bearded fit, the Garganey duck and the white-fronted goose. Endeavours have been made for two years to obtain further grants from the Ministry of Agriculture to drain the land. The owner has presented the NCC with a choice, and has been very fair. The choice is either to purchase the land for £250,000 or to buy a three-year moratorium on draining operations at £23,000 a year, totalling £69,000.
I have serious questions to pose to the Minister. Will he tell the House the part played by his Department in subsequent developments? Did the NCC request additional aid towards either purchase or management agreement finance? In the light of previous ministerial assurances regarding moneys available for specific projects such as Walland marsh, what was the Minister's response? Did he in any way inhibit the NCC from using


its funds to purchase? I can envisage the abandonment of hundreds of SSSI designations, due to the NCC's being starved of funds.
Paragraph 6 of the code, referring to the notification of SSSIs after 30 November 1981, provides for notification to be sent to
the appropriate Agricultural Departments, the Forestry Commission, Water Authorities and, where appropriate, Internal Drainage Boards and other relevant bodies.
Will the Minister assure us that among the other relevant bodies we are including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for National Parks, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the British Association of Nature Conservationists and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. Are those the sorts of bodies that are likely to comment?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman may have been reading the recent article in The Sunday Times on Walland marsh. It is untrue to say that anybody in the Government acted without consultation with the appropriate authorities. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the role of Walland marsh and the exclusive flora and fauna that it contains, I have to point out that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disposed of that acreage some years ago, so that matter is not now of the utmost importance. That was the view of the NCC.

Mr. Graham: The Under-Secretary's information differs from what I was told while preparing for the debate. I will re-check my facts.
May we be told why there are no references in the code to the financial arrangements? The Under-Secretary referred to the consultation exercise that is taking place, but surely Parliament should have an opportunity to comment on the financial arrangements before they are put into effect. Consultations are taking place and observations will be made, but at what stage will the House have an opportunity to comment on the financial arrangements?
Rumour has it that the sort of compensation and other payments envisaged in the consultation paper will disappoint many people. There is a difference between what they were promised and what is now proposed.
If the voluntary system is to stand any chance of success, sufficient funds must be made available to the NCC. It needs more funds, because without them it is likely to fall on three fronts. It needs funds for the speedy notification of new and existing SSSIs. The original date for the completion of notification was December 1982, but I have been told that a more realistic date would be as late as 1984. Because more time is required to complete that exercise it will inevitably mean that important sites for SSSI status will be lost. I am told that voluntary bodies are having to purchase some sites to make sure that they are not lost to the public.
Secondly, the NCC needs additional funds to engage in adequate discussion and consultation with landowners wishing to carry out damaging operations. We have heard from the NFU about the value of such face-to-face consultation.
Thirdly, the NCC needs additional money for management agreements, payments of compensation and purchases with grant-aid by the council or other appropriate bodies. The NFU has said that where extra funds are required they must be made available.
This has been a disappointing beginning to a long-awaited renaissance in conservation. The Government must do better if they wish to retain the faith of the House.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The hon. Gentleman will know from our discussions on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill that there are differences of opinion on the best way to proceed. However, I think that we all share the objective of protecting the environment and the countryside. That is dear to every sensible Member.
Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, while he may make fair criticisms, the Opposition will make every effort to make our approach work, in the interests of everybody in this country?

Mr. Graham: If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether we want the code of practice to work, the answer is "Yes". To the extent that it is within our power to make it work we shall do so, but the Government have more power in that regard. Individuals may look for loopholes to exploit, but the key to success is the availability of funds, and only the Government can make those funds available.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important that the scheme starts off with a measure of Government generosity in cash terms, because that will win friends among all groups? If the scheme appears to be started in a spirit of meanness, it will destroy any hope of the voluntary code working properly.

Mr. Graham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I accept that they are only the first faltering steps in the exercise of the guidelines, but discussions are already taking place with the NCC about future funding. I hope that in the light of those discussions and contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening there will be more generous funding in the future. On that basis, the Labour Party not only does not oppose but welcomes the code as a first step towards the essential protection of our heritage.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) showed a great spirit of cooperation and rightly emphasised the importance of funding. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his presentation of the guidelines that will be so important in the future.
There is no doubt that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has many important implications, has aroused much interest, and has strengthened enormously the legislation on wildlife and its habitat. It placed a substantial responsibility on the Nature Conservancy Council in relation to sites of special scientific interest. I must declare an interest, in that I am the newest member of the NCC, having been appointed only yesterday. However, I am speaking for myself, because I have not discussed with the council its past or future attitude to the guidelines.
The guidlines place a heavy workload on the NCC, especially for the next two to three years while the pre-1981 notification procedure is carried out. There is no doubt that the staff will be stretched to the limit during that time. The issue cannot be resolved by letter. It must be resolved by visits, discussions, subsequent advice and perhaps legal transactions. The staff will do its best, but we cannot expect miracles. The Act called for the code of


guidance, which is a culmination of the discussions between the Departent of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The result highlights the difficulty of transforming legislation into something warm and simple that the layman can read and understand. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister has had more time and can deploy the financial guidelines, he can put both into a popular version for distribution to the public.
Wildlife and land conservation must proceed with mutual trust and confidence. At present, there is much good will among many conservation organisations, landowners, farmers and foresters. The attitude of the Government and the NCC to SSSIs must maintain that good will. I welcome the encouraging signs that I have received during the past two weeks in the form of briefs from groups interested in the debate. The National Farmers Union put forward a most encouraging brief in a spirit of co-operation that I wish to see developed, as did the Timber Growers Organisation (Great Britain) Ltd.
I hope that we shall see the same spirit of co-operation from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from the water and drainage boards, from the Ministry of Defence, which seems to have a bigger and bigger impact the more one looks into the matter, from the Forestry Commission, and from the PSA. All those public undertakings, Government bodies and Ministries have to show the same spirit of co-operation as is being deployed by the Department of the Environment, the conservationists and the NFU.
There is much good will that should be tapped and brought together. This will mean a positive approach from Ministers and from the chairman of the NCC to keep together, and bind together these bodies to make sure that they co-operate. It is essential to the way that we proceed. The last thing that we want is to proceed by law suits, orders, and heaven knows what. That is no way to develop our interest in the countryside.
We do not want to put too much emphasis on the one or two bad cases that have received headlines. We have to look at the broad picture of thousands of SSSIs, all being managed extremely well, with the probability that they will continue to be managed extremely well. In many cases they have enthusiastic owners such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. He delights in having his SSSI, and that is so with the majority of owners who welcome the privilege of having an SSSI. There are a few irresponsible owners who bring the whole spirit of the legislation into disrepute. We must not overreact to those but bear in mind the thousands who are so helpful.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If all SSSI owners were good, there would be no need for the legislation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real problem is that we have to deal with the bad ones rather than with the good ones who do not need legislation, and that the test of the voluntary code is not how it deals with the good but how it deals with the bad owners?

Sir Hector Monro: That is a fair point, but we should not brand all owners of SSSIs as black sheep. We should look at the totality and not be carried away by the one or two bad cases, in which the NCC and the Minister, if necessary, will take the appropriate action under the powers provided by the Act.
The Act has sharpened interest in conservation. That was intentional. The view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that if we brought in legislation it would focus attention on the countryside and on to what had been happening, and how he felt our policy should be deployed in the future. To that end, the Act has been singularly satisfactory.
As my hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the financial guidelines are as important as the guidelines we are discussing in the order tonight. They are complementary and essential to our reading of the Government's attitude in the future. The Bill originally talked of £700,000 additional expenditure to cover everything in the Act. We have heard tonight that a further sum of £600,000 has been made available. However, as we proceeded in the Committee it seemed that a larger and larger sum would become essential if the true spirit of the legislation on SSSIs was to be carried out.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to say a little more about how he sees the relationship between the NCC and himself in the spending of money on SSSIs, whether on management agreement, purchase or on other forms of grant that could be of assistance to maintain an SSSI in the condition that we all wish it to be.
If we are to retain the confidence of the conservationists and of the farmers, who largely own the SSSIs, we must be seen to be fulfilling the spirit of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly sheltered the heritage and countryside from any substantial cuts that have been necessary in public expenditure in his Department. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will see its way to assisting and playing its part in maintaining the countryside. We all want to see rural interests maintained. Maintaining the population in rural areas is an important part of Government policy.
I believe that we are very much on the right lines as set out in the guidelines but time, understanding and diplomacy will be needed if we are to get the best out of the Act and from the guidelines.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Working as hard as the hon. Gentleman did last summer on what was then the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, is it not a matter of some regret to him that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not been more forthcoming? It was the Opposition's impression that something had been achieved in the way of MAFF money.

Sir Hector Monro: I have been away from the consultation and discussion between the Department and the Ministry for over a year now and it would be difficult to make the comment that the hon. Gentleman invites me to make. The guidelines have been published and the financial guidelines are under discussion, and this is the moment to raise an eyebrow when the question is posed whether the MAFF will participate in a way that relates to its responsibilities in promoting good will and continuing the high standards of the countryside that we all want to see. The future holds the answer to the case of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as well as the present. I am fortunate in being in a better position now to watch what is happening than I was over the past 12 months.
We must give great credit to Sir Ralph Verney, his colleagues and his officials for an encouraging start. They


are informing owners of their rights and duties. They are entering into consultations and they will make decisions in the light of the finance that is available to them. I am sure that they will implement the guidelines with a light and friendly hand and very much in the spirit that we feel

should be displayed by the Nature Conservancy Council. We shall need co-operation and understanding in the countryside and not bitterness and controversy. Time is a wonderful healer. We will have that time if everybody is sensible. The future augurs well if we look to it with care and consideration. We must not rush our fences in the first year of the guidelines.

Mr. John Garrett: I wish briefly to refer to the code of guidance for sites of special scientific interest as it is likely to affect Norfolk. I make no apology for that because few landscapes are suffering from so much wanton damage as those of Norfolk and none is under greater threat, especially sites of special scientific interest.
Norfolk has a most distinctive landscape. It is unique in wildlife habitat. The Norfolk Broads and the surrounding wetlands represent no less than one-fifth of the wetland habitats of Britain. The county has always been intensively farmed and heavily used for recreation. In the past 20 years commercial pressures have mounted to such an extent that wholesale destruction is now in prospect.
The attack on this irreplaceable national asset is being mounted by commercial and farming interests, massively subsidised by the taxpayer and, perhaps more alarming, by public authorities—for example, by the Forestry Commission, the Anglian water authority and the internal drainage boards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) referred to some of the problems with the code. We know that when an SSSI is proposed there is a consultation period of at least three months before it can be confirmed by the Nature Conservancy Council's commission. During the consultation period the site can be destroyed by the landholder. There are examples of that in the Norfolk wetlands.
It is clear that the Secretary of State does not envisage the frequent use of 12-month stop notices and that he is likely to starve the NCC of funds to implement them. On the scale of compensation envisaged, the NCC will be able to save only a handful of sites on its present budget. That would be two or three a year out of the 4,000 in existence.
I raised this matter with the Minister during his speech. I should like him to confirm that the NCC is the subject of a Rayner exercise aimed at reducing staff. That is important as it cannot complete its work without the present level of staff. There is no guarantee that landholders will be refused agricultural grants for destroying SSSIs during the three-month consultation period.
The big issue in Norfolk is the proposed Halvergate scheme to drain 6,000 acres of the largest remaining wetland habitat in Britain around the Norfolk broads, much of it an SSSI. It is a matter of international importance. However, minor schemes that destroy SSSIs are going on all the time in the county. There is insidious destruction that appears to be uncontrollable.
In the past 18 months alone a list of SSSIs that have been significantly damaged was provided to me by the Norfolk Naturalist Trust, which includes Bridgham and Brettenham Heath in Breckland, which is a distinctive habitat, much of which has been preserved by the Ministry of Defence as a battle area; Horsey mere on the Broads, Winterton dunes, the Ant marshes, Boughton fen, Burntfen broad and the Dersingham bog. The damage has not stopped. About 1,000 acres of wetland around the Norfolk Broads have been lost in the past six months alone. There will be further losses on Sandringham Warren near King's Lynn.
The Anglian water authority proposes a flood protection scheme in the Waveney valley at a cost of £1W9

million, which will encourage landowners to improve the riverside water meadows and destroy a wealth of plant life around Geldeston. The planning officer of Norfolk county council has said that no study of the environmental impact of that scheme has been carried out.
The Anglian water authority proposes to deepen the bed of the River Wensum near Fakenham and so improve 1,200 acres of grazing. Virtually all the cost will be met from public funds, 22 per cent. by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is the main viable trout river in Norfolk and one of the only two rivers in the county that support a small population of otters. It is in an area designated to be of landscape importance. The otter population would be eliminated and there would be a severe effect on angling. The Norfolk county council planning officer said that there would be a severe effect on the landscape.
All that destruction is paid for out of public funds. It is all based on the bogus premise that anything that improves agricultural profits is all benefit and no cost. None of those schemes has been considered from an environmental point of view or subjected to environmental impact analyses.
I now come to the present cause cèlébre of the Norfolk landscape, which is the Halvergate levels. It is an important test case for the operation of such legislation. It is an area of 5,800 acres of grazing marsh south of the river Bure in east Norfolk. Post war, the ornithological interest of the area has been reduced by more efficient drainage in 1947, but it is a site of European importance for wintering wildfowl. Much of it is an SSSI.
The Lower Bure, Halvergate, Fleet and Acle marshes internal drainage board, a remarkably unaccountable quango, wishes to carry out further drainage improvements to convert those 5,800 acres to arable and improved grazing. The cost would be £2·3 million, of which £850,000 would be available initially as grant in aid. Those levels are the largest single block of grazing marsh left in Broad land. Their destruction threatens the policy of the Broads authority of maintaining tracts of grazing marsh because of their scenic and scientific qualities. The public subsidy to the farmers concerned would amount to £1,700 per hectare.
The Countryside Commission has said that the proposed scheme would have
an unacceptable impact on nationally important landscape".
The Countryside Commission called for a public inquiry into the grant applications. The Broads authority called for a public. inquiry. My colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), and I have asked for a public inquiry. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has consistently refused any such public inquiry. In my view, a public inquiry on the matter is absolutely essential.
The director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England said:
the most extraordinary feature of this huge drainage proposal is the ease with which massive sums of public money can be made available for the promoters of it… The public could well end up paying for the destruction of one of the key landscapes of the Broads in a scheme which could well bring no public benefit".
At the moment, the Broads authority is hoping to pay compensation to farmers for not draining less than one-fifth of the total area of the Halvergate levels. It has in mind £35,000 a year. The farmers want £65,000 a year index-linked for ever.
In recent months, the IDB has removed one section of the levels amounting to 1,300 acres from its proposed scheme. So much for the need for the scheme in the first place. Meanwhile, the president of the Association of Drainage Authorities—whoever he is—has confidently promised that the scheme will go ahead, with heaven knows what authority.
The director of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England estimates that if the Halvergate scheme goes ahead, a further 18,000 acres of wetlands in the Broads will be drained. To safeguard the most valuable of those on the present scale of compensation on the Halvergate model would cost £1 million a year, and that is for just one part of the wetland area around the Broads.

Mr. Macfarlane: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I understand his anxiety following some of the rumours and observations that have been made in recent months about a matter which clearly concerns him and certainly concerns my right hon. Friend and myself. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that for the purposes of this debate the main area of contention does not include the SSSI which we are discussing this evening.

Mr. Garrett: Does the Minister mean the main area of contention of the scheme that I am describing?

Mr. Macfarlane: indicated assent.

Mr. Garrett: Some of the SSSIs in the general area have already been destroyed. Let me give an example. Recently, since the passage of the Act, one farmer in the Halvergate area drained 40 acres of grazing land, although 22 acres of it were in a site of special scientific interest. That is vandalism against which we have no redress.
Let me give another example of this uncontrolled destruction. Martham broad is not only a site of special scientific interest; it is a site scheduled under the RAMSAR convention as being of international importance. It is one of only three remaining broads not to have its water quality impaired by a smothering of its aquatic flora by iron ochre and silt. During 1980, 500 acres of pasture were drained, damaging the Broad's water quality. Now—and I mean now—the owner wishes to double the capacity of the pump, and the local IDB is willing to bypass the broad and save it from destruction only on payment of £11,500 by conservation interests. How can the Government stand by and witness such a threat to a site which has been scheduled as being of internatonal importance, as well as being one of national importance?

Mr. Hardy: He signed the agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: It is profoundly depressing, because in Committee I and others ground on and on—in my case, for one and a quarter hours, briefed by Mr. Long, Peter Melchett and others. The Minister remembers very well, because he had to bear the brunt of it. At the end of the day we were promised that something would be done about it. It is very depressing to find that 15 months later nothing whatever has been done about it.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is quite right. It is depressing to a lot of us in Norfolk.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): rose—

Mr. Garrett: I shall not give way.
The county of Norfolk is being reduced to a grain prairie by this so-called improvement. Half the county's hedgerows were destroyed between the end of the war and 1970. Today, two-thirds of them have gone. In these most important areas of special scientific interest around the broads, on breckland and in the county landscape, this code of practice gives insufficient protection.
So far we have had a good-mannered debate. In my opinion, a Cabinet of rich farmers have no interest in safeguarding the environment and landscape of our country. Perhaps I am being unfair. The party of property interests has little interest in safeguarding the environment. There is a growing sense of outrage among my constituents, the people of Norfolk, about what is being done to their landscape. We do not believe that the code will protect it.

Mr. John Farr: I welcome the code which has been introduced tonight. I apologise to the House for being late and not hearing what the Minister said when he opened the debate. I welcome the code and the voluntary system. The voluntary system has been decided upon after extensive consultation in Committee and the other place. The country wants the system to be given a fair chance of success. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) nodding assent, as I knew that he would. To do that, the Act must be properly funded.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment to the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that the House agrees with me. From our knowledge of his activities during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, when he was such a distinguished Minister, we are certain that the NCC has gained a valuable colleague who will assist materially in its discussions.
The implementation of the Act must be properly funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has touched upon the present inadequate funding. The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned other problems relating to funding. Due to the hiatus between the passing of the Act in 1981 and its full implementation, there have been one or two worring cases where the Nature Conservancy Council does not seem to have been prepared to use its powers to the full. It may be that the NCC's reticence is due to its lack of funds. I shall not go into the details of the examples which have been mentioned, but I do not believe that the NCC was asking for an excessive amount when it requested an extra £950,000 to £1·13 million.
I do not regard the extra allocation of £600,000 that it received to cover its new activities as adequate. The NCC desperately needs more money to support three major phases of putting the Act into effect. First, it has the mammoth task of informing all owners and occupiers of existing and new SSSIs, which must be done without delay and if possible completed within 12 months. That involves over 4,000 sites and 40,000 individuals and is fundamental to the effective working of the SSSI system. I understand that the NCC has about 100 members of staff only available for that work. At the first sign of any slippage in the field, I hope that the NCC will return to the Secretary


of State and ask for extra funds to enable it to employ staff to complete the essential work. Without it the system will be meaningless.
Secondly, there could be a flood of responses to the notification process, not all menacing. There will be many genuine attempts by owners to co-operate. If the voluntary approach is to work, long and detailed discussions may be needed which will require tremendous perseverance and time. It is no use writing to an occupier or sending him a form to tell him that he has an SSSI on his land. He must be visited, and the complex system must be explained. Even those of us who were on the Standing Committee do not fully appreciate it. Extra staff will be needed.
Thirdly, when the voluntary agreements have been reached the NCC must have adequate funds for compensation payments. It must not be deterred from seeking agreement because of lack of resources. If adequate funds are not available, the voluntary system will fail, to our deep regret.
I hope that the NCC will keep the Government informed of its problems. Every time that its resources are insufficient to fulfil a particular need or to safeguard a site, it must tell the Government.

Mr. Graham: In Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave a categoric assurance that if the NCC needed funds for specific projects the money would be available. Perhaps requests have not been made. The NCC may be in the dilemma of trying to keep itself or the Government out of trouble by going through the exercise of deciding whether to ask for more money. I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that when the NCC decides that a site should be designated and requires additional funds it should have the courage to ask the Government.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. The NCC would be failing the country if it did not go to the Government. It has a duty to do so. It would not be discharging its obligations unless it notified the Minister right away.
I hope that the NCC will make itself heard. It should let the Government know every time that resources are needed to safeguard a site or when it has insufficient staff to put in train the new duties that the Act has thrust upon it. I believe that if it approaches the Government it will have the full support of the House and the country.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I apologise. I was caught napping and the Minister's speech was well under way before I realised that the debate had started.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment to the Nature Conservancy Council. I hope that he will be a tower of strength on the NCC and persuade his former colleagues to provide adequate funds.
Everything that needs to be said has been said by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) who made a first-class criticism of what many of us feel are the weaknesses of the code of guidance in an Act that we all greatly welcomed. But there are loopholes that still need to be closed.
One alarming loophole is the three-month provision under section 28(2)(b), and this needs to be dealt with.
It is nonsense that we should be ploughing up pasture land at a time when we have just had a huge harvest. We

are exporting grain crops. There is a grain mountain in Europe. We have almost excessive production. I gave up farming some years ago. I am the idiot who sold his farm for £200 an acre only to see it sold some 10 years later for about £1,500 and acre. At the time I gave up farming, corn yields amounted to 30 cwt to two tons an acre. Now the figure is between four tons and five tons an acre. It is now possible to produce species of barley and wheat which will mean even higher yields. We are talking in terms of six tons, seven tons and even eight tons an acre. Is there really a need to plough up all this pasture land?
I have recently spent a fortnight in the Alpine region of Yugoslavia. I welcomed the sight of small farmers coming out with their scythes to cut pasture land. The wild flowers are still present. It is marvellous to see them. It is a way of life that takes one back in time. I wonder why we are going ahead at the present pace and destroying our pastures and wetlands. I do not believe that we can control the pace. There is a need for legislative powers if we are to save our countryside. Over the last 10 years, the Isle of Wight has changed out of all recognition. Fields of heavy clay which I never expected to be ploughed up are now producing corn. Cattle are hardly to be seen in many areas of the countryside. I am sure that the same applies in many other parts of the country.
There is need to look again at a system that encourages farmers to plough up land through grant aids and drainage schemes. Discussions should take place between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the whole question of grant aid to see whether there should not be a change of emphasis. The figures for compensation payments will be traumatic. One area in Kent that has been quoted is likely to cost up to £100,000 a year for about one quarter of the area of a site of special scientific interest. Huge sums of money are involved. There has been mention of figures of up to £1 million. I do not believe that any Government can face such compensatory amounts. It is becoming ridiculous.
A change of attitude is needed in many areas. Time is not on our side. The old time farmer has gone, to be replaced by huge fanning companies operating on institutional money. The reason in known. With huge bank overdrafts that have been costing 15 per cent. or more, the farms have to be efficient. They are efficient. We are possibly the most efficient agricultural nation in the would, certainly the Western world. One has however, to count the cost. I question the necessity for this approach in view of the enormous production that has been achieved.
I welcome the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the code of guidance. I hope that it will succeed. I welcome the attitude of the National Farmers Union. It is right in wanting to see people co-operate, but the NFU itself has been let down over straw-burning. The code on straw-burning does not work. There is need for much greater penalties if the few remaining hedgerows in vast areas of corn-growing land are to be preserved.
There is need for serious consultation between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on grants. It is nonsense to encourage people to carry out all this work, to drain land and to bring it into cultivation. It is no longer necessary. In war time, it was necessary. It is not necessary now. With those words, I welcome the code and hope that it will succeed.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is just like old times to see so many of the hard core of the Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill and to participate in almost a continuation of those discussions.
I certainly add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his appointment to the Nature Conservancy Council. That is a very wise appointment indeed. The way in which he conducted our proceedings when he was in charge of the Bill made it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that he had enormous interest and sympathy for the countryside as a whole.
I reaffirm my belief that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is a good Act. It has been woefully misinterpreted out in the field by those who perhaps have a bigger axe to grind and would have liked more from it. Nevertheless, it was a hard-run, hard-fought compromise between all the interests that looked towards the land through different spectacles seeking different things from the land. I believe that we achieved a very fair balance between all the conflicting interests.
The code of guidance that has now emerged to deal with SSSIs is part of that Act—a manifestation of its voluntary spirit. I wish it to be clearly understood that I want the voluntary side of the Act to work, and I was glad to note the assurance given by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), leading for the Opposition, to the effect that he, too, wanted the voluntary side of this to work. I believe that if we all want it to work it stands a very good chance of working, but this requires one intangible factor that has been the common thread of our debate today—that is, good will.
We may approach good will in a variety of different ways. It may be approached cynically or naively, but at the end of the day, whether countryside conservation is dealt with by the full force of compulsion and law or by the voluntary spirit, it revolves around good will. Without good will, we get nowhere.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), when he intervened in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, said that the test of the code would be whether it dealt with the small percentage of baddies, regardless of the great magnitude of goodies. Here I make an observation which I hope is not too cynical. Regardless of whether there is law or requests for a voluntary spirit, there will be a percentage of baddies. It is rather like the preservation order put on an Elizabethan house. Once the house has been knocked down, the person responsible can say, "Fine me if you like, but it cannot be put back up again." We have seen the baddies at work from time to time against legislation relating to the preservation of structures.
That is not to say that we should therefore go only for compulsion. It means that we must maintain an open mind and try to create circumstances in which good will prevails rather than compulsion and ill will. I see good will as a two-way process. A key factor in the establishment of good will must be the attitude adopted by the NCC. I have no reason to believe that the council has been anything other than entirely sympathetic and empathetic hitherto. Nevertheless, the NFU refers in the brief that has been quoted to the fears that are felt when an official-looking

document drops through the letter box and makes itself felt over breakfast, and the fear that it excites that "they" are going to come and interfere with the person's land.
The NCC therefore needs to think through its basic approach to landowners. In referring to landowners, I do not wish to talk about the PSA, the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Defence. There is no earthly excuse for any of those bodies taking the kind of action that a number of hon. Members fear. Those bodies have no pretext whatever for not understanding what this is all about. I refer to the honest, hard-working landowner or tenant of agricultural property, who can be forgiven if, from time to time, he expresses fears about what the NCC might do. A correct approach by the NCC is important to deal with that problem.
A sensible request has been made for popular versions of the code of guidance and the financial guidance. I do not want to appear patronising, but it should be written in simple terms. I would appreciate that so that I could know exactly where I stood in words of one or two syllables. There is nothing wrong with writing simply. Various agencies have run campaigns against gobbledegook, and this is an opportunity to show a lead. I do not regard the code of guidance as gobbledegook, but it is slightly fearsome.
The other half of the good will relates to finances. There is a saying that money cannot buy happiness; it cannot buy good will either, but it certainly helps. If the money is right, the good will will flow more easily. One cannot put a finite bound on the sum at this stage. It can be conjectured about or projected about, but until we operate this part of the Bill it will not be clear how much money will be required. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that it will not be left for the NCC to make a bid, but that in a spirit of co-operation and harmony between the Department of the Environment and the NCC the whole progress will be kept under constant review so that the necessary moves can be made in advance to correct what might go wrong, rather than waiting until it has gone wrong.
That not only relates to the resources of the NCC—an aspect on the menu tonight; it is reflected in the outcome of the present consultations on how much compensation is available for management agreements. The two cannot be taken side by side. I want a continuous review of the expenditure needs of that section of the Act.
I wish to add my two bits to the debate about the background against which the Act has come about. During the course of our discussions there has been immense wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of SSSIs. With 1,000 years of agriculture behind us, it is possibly a miracle that any SSSIs are left. That makes it all the more important that we take steps to create a climate in which the will and wish to preserve SSSIs continue.
I noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about the ploughing of arable lands, the increase in the crop yield and so on. The right question to ask is why it is all necessary. Why does an area of land that was hitherto unattractive become attractive if a certain investment is made, even more so if that investment carries with it an immense interest burden and the costs related to it? We need look not much further than the agriculture White Papers for the last five years, which have shown a steadily decreasing level of gross farm incomes. Therein lies the key. If we squeeze the return
from the land, the landowner and farmer will seek to broaden the base of their operations to compensatee for their loss in margin.
It is of little consequence that we happen to compound this felony by having grants for this and that. We cannot then complain that it has all been done at public expense, because we took our dividend by not paying the proper rate for the food that we have eaten. Therefore, we pay dearly in another direction and we have been paying dearly in the destruction of SSSIs and in creating a climate where SSSIs have come under threat.
We must recognise that we as a country, people and Parliament have a responsibility. It is no consolation to me that the tempo of the increase in the destruction of SSSIs possibly increased while the Labour Government were in power and pursued their agriculture policies. Labour Members should pause to reflect that, despite all the justifiable concern they now show, they may have created the climate for the destruction of SSSIs.
I look forward to the successful operation of the Act.
I look to Ministers to shout from the rooftops that it is a successful Act that will benefit the countryside and everyone who wishes to have access to it. I look forward enormously to the development of good will that will sustain the voluntary spirit that we enacted.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The second paragraph of the draft code states that
The conservation and proper management of SSSIs is vital".
Everyone is urged to co-operate, and so they should, but the Government should provide a better example.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that we cannot expect miracles. Even though much has been achieved in the generation of good will and in stimulating co-operation between conservationist and farmer, the fact remains that much damage has been done since the Act was before us last year. The situation in East Anglia is starkly horrific. Even though much has been achieved, and even though the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) was right to talk about the need to stimulate good will in agriculture, the changes that have taken place both in agriculture practice and possession are significant.
In the past, a farmer may have geared his activities to serve not merely his own generation but that of his grandchildren. Today, agriculture activities may be geared only to next year's balance sheet, because those who make the decisions may live 500 miles away.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The point I was trying to make was that the pressures we have put on agriculture have given rise to this stress.

Mr. Hardy: I accept that. However, I want to talk about the code and not about agriculture. That is another subject, and it is perhaps a pity that we do not have a full day for debate.
The code is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it contains deficiencies, particularly in the operation of the 1981 Act. Widespread concern is developing in response to some of the outrageous destruction. There is a growing suspicion that the Government's commitment is rather more cosmetic than it should be. That was described in what The Sunday Times referred to last weekend as "a fiasco".
The problem relates to the establishment and safeguarding of the SSSI' s. When a new SSSI is proposed,

three months is allowed for consultation. We forecast difficulties about this in Committee, but our forecasts were rejected. In practice, that three months has allowed some—I accept that it is a minority—irresponsible individuals to destroy the site. The Minister must assure responsible farmers and conservationists that that damage cannot be tolerated. I hope that before we end this debate tonight, we will have had some assurance that the amending Bill to close that loophole will pass through the House in the next Session.
My next major point has already been referred to, but it is worth re-emphasising. It relates to the 12-month protection which is supposed to be given under section 29. It is obviously implicit that, if negotiation fails, the NCC should have the long stop capacity to purchase. That means that the NCC has to possess a capacity to purchase but, sadly, the Government have denied the NCC: that capacity. Perhaps the Government could reconsider that position urgently They have given an extra £600,000, but that is one penny per person per year, and it is not as generous as it could be, particularly when set against the sort of expenditure that Halvergate Marshes and the like might command. I accept that there will be costs. I recognise that, since the Act, there may have been inflation in the level of management payments but, unfortunately, it is now suspected that the NCC simply cannot afford to pay and, because it cannot afford to pay, it may not be taking the necessary steps to secure the protection of valuable sites which could then be destroyed legitimately. Therefore, to balance this, the NCC does need adequate funding. It would be wise as well as aesthetically pleasing—indeed, it may be actually economic.
Does the Minister accept that it would be sensible and a saving to withhold agricultural grant in the subsidy of destruction during consultation periods? Nor is it reasonable for the Government to pay grant for destruction of a site if the NCC approach is rejected by an irresponsible landowner—rejected against the advice of the National Farmers Union and the Timber Growers Organisation (Great Britain) Limited and every responsible organisation. Indeed, if an agricultural grant is approved to destroy a site where irresponsibility has been displayed, the Government can only be seen as providing a reward for irresponsibility and an open invitation to flout the spirit of the Act and the wishes of Government and Parliament. I hope that there can be an early resolution of such anomalies and that the Ministry of Agriculture can display the responsibility that some people in the Department of the Environment may have long wished to display. That would certainly help to generate the good will to which the hon. Member for Hereford referred. I am well aware that in my constituency good farmers are deeply offended by the actions of the irresponsible minority. They become very angry when the irresponsible individual gets away with it and gets the whole of the farming community a bad name.
Conservationists believe that the Government are not yet fulfilling their legal obligations to assist conservation under the Agriculture Act 1970. The Minister is aware of those obligations and I certainly hope that the Minister can, over the next year, ensure that those obligations are more closely observed than what has happened in Norfolk suggests has been the case in the past few months.
I shall not bore the House by repeating the list of sites that have been damaged and destroyed in the past year or


two, but I wonder whether the Minister can ascertain before the debate ends how much has been spent by the Ministry of Agriculture in the destruction and damage of the sites that have been mentioned during the debate. It would probably make the amount of money available to the NCC appear rather absurd. It might be useful if we could tot up how much we have spent since the Act became law in destroying the sites that it was supposed to have protected.
10.45 pm
I believe that the NCC has no resources left with which to implement any further this year section 29 of the Act. Indeed, I believe that the shortage of resources was known when the Minister ratified the Berne convention earlier this summer. Ratification against that background is an example of an unacceptable inconsistency.
The Minister will recall the blocking of my Hedgerow Bill earlier this Session. There has been reference in the debate to the hedgerow needs. I have had no previous opportunity to make clear that many people in Britain believe that the Government blocked that Bill at the behest of the National Farmers Union. Many people blame the farmers for the blocking of that Bill. I have felt extremely sorry when people have complained to me that the farmers were behind the blocking of the Bill. The Minister is clearly aware that the National Farmers Union did not persuade him to block that Bill. The NFU did not act in that manner. It is wrong for the Government to let the blame lie at the door of the NFU for that blocking. The Minister needs to redeem himself and the position of his Government in regard to the protection of our national heritage.
The story of one SSSI causes concern. There is an ancient woodland called Weldon Park Wood. The experience of that site does not justify a great deal of optimism and it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain the position. The owner of the site asked permission initially to fell 40 acres of the 129 acres in the wood. The NCC objected. Eventually the Minister and a colleague in the Department or in the Government went to the wood to resolve the difficulty. I believe—and I should be grateful for the Minister's further explanation of the matter—that, far from the owner of the wood being given permission initially to fell just 40 of the 129 acres, he was given permission to fell two-thirds of the wood—a great deal more than he had asked for in the first place.
A few months ago their Lordships said that no further erosion of our broadleaf woodland heritage should occur. It is extraordinary that a decision of the sort I have just mentioned should have been made at a time when we are seeking to promote the good will that everyone in the House wishes to see.
There is growing concern throughout the country. Areas in various parts of Britain have been referred to, and only this afternoon I was told of fears concerning Monewden Meadows, Rookery Farm, Coombs Wood and Bulls Wood in Suffolk. Examples can be found throughout Britain. We gave them in Committee and I hope that we shall not be giving them in 12 months' time.
The one advantageous position is that the conservation bodies, the land-owning bodies and the farming bodies are now forming an alliance. There has been reference to the briefs of the NFU, which wishes to see the NCC having

sufficient resources with which to set up a proper dialogue. There has been reference to the Timber Growers' Association (Great Britain) Ltd., which is to back the Act and hopes that the NCC has the resources to operate effectively. The arguments of those bodies and of conservation bodies such as the RSPB and the RSNC are almost coalescing into a form of unity which five years ago would not have been imaginable. I do not particularly wish to see—as a politician I say it without absolute sincerity—an alliance forming between all those bodies in opposition to the present Government's policy. I do not particularly wish to see Britain's natural heritage becoming a football, but I am convinced that we need very soon to see a demonstration by the Government that they understand and care for the national heritage.
Throughout my years in politics I have observed the Conservative Party pretending that it understands and knows and is concerned about the countryside and the rural areas of Britain. What is happening in those areas illustrates that that is a pretence. In the best interests of this country and of the leisure that our unemployed population needs, the Government must do much more to make this land fit to live in. Some of us fear that the heritage that we knew will not be available to our children, let alone to our grandchildren. The obligation that the Government appeared to be accepting when the Bill went through last year has already been substantially betrayed.

Mr. John Watson: I am surprised that no one has yet said that this is a rather good code. It cannot have been easy to strike the ideal compromise between the conflicting interests, but the code is a good attempt. I do not know who in the deeper labyrinths of the Department of the Environment was responsible for the drafting, but he has done a good job. He has achieved the necessary tone of co-operation, and it is particularly commendable that there is an element of personal involvement by the NCC staff.
I add my voice to those of the hon. Members who have said that we must have an early resolution of the financial question. One of the most crucial paragraphs in the code is No. 27 on management agreements which states:
Where an agreement is made…its financial provisions will be in accordance with guidelines to be given by Ministers".
The small print at the bottom of the page says:
The guidelines will be published under the title 'Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—Financial Guidelines for Management Agreements' .
Until we know precisely what the guidelines will be and how much money is on offer it will be difficult for us to judge the weight and authority that the code, good as it is, will carry.
I mention the financial aspect not only because the present financial uncertainty is making the NCC hesitate before offering farmers management agreements, but because a number of farmers are aware of the financial uncertainty and are consequently reluctant to accept the management agreements that are offered to them.
One of my constituents has an 80-acre field near the village of Arncliffe. It includes about 30 acres of bracken and my constituent wanted to spray the bracken earlier this year to eradicate it and make the land more suitable for grazing. Virtually all the 80 acres is an SSSI, because it possesses a particular plant. I do not know it—doubtless it is small and very beautiful—but it does not grow anywhere else in England or Wales.
When my constituent told the NCC that he intended to spray the bracken, it asked how he intended to do so. He replied that as it was a large area, with a one-in-two gradient, he would use a helicopter. The NCC said that that was an inaccurate method of spraying bracken and that some of the spray might damage the rare plants.
The farmer was co-operative and asked what method the NCC would suggest. The council replied that backpack spraying would be more accurate, but it offered him a management agreement. The farmer wondered whether he should accept the offer and the doubt that he expressed in a letter to me runs to the heart of the concern about the financial provisions of the code. He said:
The point is if we do enter a management agreement with them will the NCC have sufficient funds to pay each year on the nail? Reports are that they are behind on other management agreements. If there is any doubt please advise what steps the Government is taking to rectify the position. Giving such bodies increased powers without the wherewithal to back them up does not seem to be good legislation.
I found it rather difficult to answer that letter and I hope that I can give him a slightly more convincing answer as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister says in reply.
The management agreement and the provision of funds was not the only solution offered. I was impressed by the suggestion that volunteers with back-pack sprays should carry out the work. That would be inexpensive and might be a suitable alternative to helicopter spraying. I suggested that volunteers might be used for the purpose and for some days it was apparent that the NCC believed that I was asking for volunteers to fly the helicopter. With the patience obviously reserved for the thickest of Members of Parliament, the council explained delicately that, although one must not extinguish such enthusiasm, some tasks are best left to the experts. The NCC has a considerable pool of enthusiastic helpers and a greater use of their services could get over the need to spend too much money or to offend farmers by the defence of an SSSI.
I welcome the code. I hope that the funding can be clarified in such a way as to encourage voluntary participation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister who introduced the debate regretted the fact that we did not have the opportunity before the Summer Recess to debate this matter. I regret the fact that we must debate the code in this short time, because, having spent so long on the legislation last year, the Government and the Opposition should have been able to find a full day for a debate on the entire Act and not just on this code. Many people wish to find out what is happening about the marine nature reserves, sheep-worrying, moor-burning, straw-burning and footpaths. I hope that in the new Session we can have a full day's debate.
I also deeply regret the fact that no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present tonight. We made the point repeatedly throughout our debates that the Ministry should be represented, because, though most of us believe that the Department of the Environment has its heart in the right place, we doubt whether the heart of the Ministry is in the right place. We are also worried about money. Most of us believe that it would be difficult for the Department of the Environment to obtain from the Treasury more money for conservation areas, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already has the money that it now spends on agricultural

grants, which should be redirected towards conservation. We have not got across our message to some people in the Ministry.
One question that I wish to have answered is: how many officials has the NCC? We are worried about that and about how much co-operation there is between NCC and Ministry officials. There is nothing worse for a farmer in a marginal area who is trying to improve his income to have one set of proposals from the Ministry and then to be told by the NCC that the proposals are not ideal. The two groups of officials should co-ordinate their activities and ensure that they do not put forward conflicting proposals. Ministry officials should not say that the Department of the Environment deals with conservation and that the Ministry is worried only about producing as much food as possible, although it may mean surpluses.
I have already discussed staffing levels. We must have replies about whether the Rayner review is continuing and whether the NCC is to have the staff to carry out this voluntary code. We must stress that it is the approach to, and discussions with, farmers that will be the making or breaking of the code. However carefully the code is written—I accept that it is well written—what will win the minds and heart; of the farmers is the approach of the officials.
The Minister said that the code was to be translated into Welsh, which is good news. However, I hope that he will assure us that there will be enough Welsh-speaking NCC officials to go into the marginal farming areas of Wales, speak to the people in Welsh and make it clear that they understand the problems of the farmers there. If they cannot do that, they will have little chance of winning the confidence and co-operation of those people. It is important that we have the staff, and that they have the time to do the work efficiently by word of mouth and do not have to rely on sending out letters and copies of the order.
We want a clear statement from the Minister that NCC action will meet the needs of the moment and not just meet the available funds. The fear is that the NCC will not make proposals because it feels that the money is not there. The proposals should be made, and it should then be made clear that the Government, and not the NCC, are restricting the proposals, because they believe that there is not enough money to carry them out.
One of the most disturbing things came out in the earlier part of the debate when we were talking about West Sedgemoor and one or two other areas. The Minister seemed to be mumbling that the areas involved were small. All too often when we have been discussing SSSIs the argument has been that it does not matter if only a small part of the site is to be developed. It has been this small, piecemeal erosion of some of these sites that has done most of the damage. One little piece is taken and then another and another. Once a site begins to be eroded in that way, it is difficult to stop and say that that is enough. An argument can always be made for taking away another little piece.
There are three other sites about which I should like a reply from the Minister, if not tonight, perhaps in a letter. Two are in Wales and one is in Cumbria. There is a site in Rhos-Derlwyn Fawr in Ceredigion, Dyfed, which is an area of valley mire with old grazing meadows rich in wild flowers, including orchids. The site was identified by the


NCC before the 1981 Act came into force, but notification was delayed until the new procedures were operative. The owner had agreed that nothing should be done to it.
Unfortunately, the owner died, and his heirs called in the Welsh branch of the NFU. A meeting was arranged between it and the NCC's officer, which the union subsequently cancelled. The NCC then discovered that 26 acres of the site had been ploughed and harrowed, before any further discussions could take place. The farmers' union should say why it gave that advice in this isolated case of its not backing up what is being said nationally.
Another example is at Comins Capel in Betws in Dyfed, where an area of acidic heath and marsh was notified. This August, an area was ploughed up and rotovated without any consultation, just before the three-month period came to an end. 
Another area was at Salta Moss in Cumbria, which is one of the last remnant areas of bog on the southern shore of the Solway. The area was renotified by the NCC as an SSSI in the summer. The owner was specifically requested not to plough, drain, rotovate or re-seed the moss. He almost immediately informed the NCC of his intention to improve part of the moss—approximately 10 acres. Soon after the expiry of the three months' notice, during which the NCC sought an agreement, the owner rotovated an area of the moss, thus destroying its interest. The action was not illegal but demonstrated clearly the inadequcies of voluntary methods to safeguard these sites.
I shall give the Minister the details of those sites, but it is important that he answers, either in this debate or in correspondence, all the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends about specific examples. There is growing evidence that the voluntary code does not work for difficult sites. Clearly, the vast majority of farmers want to co-operate, and the procedure will give them some compensation, but we must protect the difficult sites, the ones where there are no co-operative farmers. That is where I and many other people in the country are afraid that the voluntary system will not work, and where we shall need compulsion to deal with the small minority of people who do not believe in voluntary co-operation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In a country such as ours, with its diverse natural habitats, it is difficult to generalise about the situations in which there could be a conflict of interest between conservation and farming. However, if the Government take the somewhat partial view that the Minister expressed in opening the debate, that all those who own a site of special scientific interest regard it as a great privilege, they will fail to understand some of the pressures which lead to conflict.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) injected a note of greater realism into the discussion, when he spoke of the difficulties experienced by the farming community in loss of income. He said that last year incomes in real terms were below those of 1976, and that it was exceedingly difficult for young farmers to acquire tenancies. Those economic and agricultural facts are the background to some of the pressure which builds up in certain areas. It is not cupidity or the profit motive. In many cases, it is loss minimisation, or profit necessarily released to sustain an enterprise that is under pressure. I

dare say that there are places where there are rolling acres of corn prairies, as described by one hon. Member, but even in such areas I am sure that the cupidity of the farmer has not caused the confrontation.
In trying to make the Wildlife and Countryside Act work in my constituency, there is much evidence that the problem that the Nature Conservancy Council faces is essentially one of inadequate resources. The cases in which there have been direct conflicts between the NCC and local farmers have not all involved great absentee proprietors. Some of them have involved small crofters, who found, when trying to realise an asset—for example, in trying to sell it to an incoming forestry company—that there was doubt about the status of the land, and certainly there was doubt about the amount of compensation which would be offered for land notified as a site of special scientific interest.
With the best will in the world, there has been an unhappy relationship between the Nature Conservancy Council and crofters and farmers who have been affected by notification. There is the example of Armadale in my constituency, where a piece of land suitable for forestry was designated and notified. There is also the example of the island of Huna off the coast of Caithness where there were extremely bad relations between the local small fanner and the NCC. I have no doubt that these examples—I could list a number of others with which the NCC is familiar—are illustrative of a problem that will not get better unless the Government are a good deal more forthcoming than they have been hitherto about the manner and quantity of compensation that they have in mind—I know that consultations are in progress about this—and in giving assurances that management agreements will be fully compensated financially.
When the Bill was introduced I think that we all wanted to see it work. It had broad support. However, in its first year of operation it has satisfied neither farmers nor conservationists.

Mr. King: That is not true.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly a Pangloss if he thinks that
all is for the best in this best of possible worlds.
He is unduly complacent when a responsible newspaper such as the Sunday Times refers to the Bill as a fiasco. The language that I am using is moderate by comparison and he should welcome such moderation. We had evidence throughout the debate from both sides of the House of land that it was desirable to protect not having been protected and of farmers incensed in West Sedgemoor and in many other areas by the operation of the Act.
Money is crucial to the success of the Act. If the Government cannot give greater assurances tonight than they have given hitherto, they should not express astonishment when difficulties are not resolved by the operation of the Act. We all want to encourage cooperation. The Government are not alone in wanting to do that. However, we all recognise that co-operation will not be forthcoming unless there is adequate financial compensation for those who are, in the Minister's word, "privileged" to own sights of special scientific interest.
The code is relatively complex, but it is comprehensible. I think that it will require close study by those who are affected by it. I doubt whether a popularised version will necessarily convey the code in its entirety. In putting complex concepts into simple language we can mislead


people. However, if it is possible to convey the intentions behind the code more simply, I shall very much welcome that approach.
If a site appears to be threatened by development that the NCC regards as being of high national importance and it does not consider that it has resources within its allotted budget sufficient to deal with the threat, it is right that the matter should be ventilated openly and that the Government should be openly approached. If an art treasure is about to be sold out of the country, the Government are notified and procedures operate to enable the Government to decide on behalf of the nation whether special funds should be made available.
With regard to the natural habitat of wildlife, a comparable financial procedure ought to be devisable by the NCC and the Government that enables them to make a special case for a specially important piece of land. I hope that the Government will give some thought to that.
I add my voice to those who have already mentioned the staffing of the NCC. That is an increasingly serious concern of the council, as well as of hon. Members and of farmers who have had difficulty in getting visits. The staff know that an axe is hanging over their heads, so they rush in to do something while they still can. If the Government are seeking to put financial pressure on the council to reduce its staff when its responsibilities are enormously increased, will they reverse course?

Mr. Macfarlane: Everyone says the same thing.

Mr. Maclennan: Let us hope that the Minister is a little more forthcoming in his reply than he was in his opening remarks. We all want the Act to work harmoniously to enable farmers to earn a reasonable living in a time of great difficulty for many of them, particularly in the marginal and less favoured areas, where some of the most important sites are.

Mr. Macfarlane: The debate has been useful, constructive and interesting. Not surprisingly, it has ranged well beyond the issue that is before the House. I might be debarred from acknowledging all the points that have been made, because of the lack of time and the content of some of the observations, which were wide-ranging, but I undertake to look at all the comments and observations and to respond as quickly as possible.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I did not concur with everything that he said, but he demonstrated his versatility on environmental affairs, in deputising for his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman).
We are considering the approval of the draft code of guidance. I believe that I am right in concluding that while the draft may not meet hon. Members' wishes in every respect, on balance there has been a welcome desire to approve the document so that without further delay it can be printed and issued to everyone who needs it. I was grateful for the assurances by Opposition Members, although they were doubtful about certain developments over the past year. My Department is looking at all the problems and emergencies that have occurred over the past 12 months. That is one of our most important and urgent priorities.
The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) needs clarification. He said

that we had upset the farmers and that we had not been welcomed by the people and interested parties. The document that I had, which was sent to certain Members of Parliament by the National Farmers Union, stated that the NFU has accepted the overall package. It has declared its intention to use its best endeavours to secure the successful implementation of the operation of the new procedures. In particular, that involves the encouragement of farmers to sign voluntary management agreements to ensure the conservation of sites of special scientific interest, subject to appropriate financial recompense, and the code should prove to be of assistance in this process. It concludes by saying that the NFU believes that the new system promises to be successful in protecting the nature conservation interests of the SSSIs, while at the same time giving a fair deal 10 the farmers concerned.
Many hon. Members have received the document. It shows that there is a broad welcome from the farming fraternity and a host of other interested organisations.
The hon. Member for Edmonton raised several points and I shall do my best to acknowledge them. He referred to West Sedgemoor and a number of other SSSIs. Many are awaiting decision and formal completion by the interested parties and the NCC. 
With regard to West Sedgemoor, one has to remember that 50 acres out of 2,500 acres are involved. The hon. Gentleman referred to Battersley Common and a section 29 order. The NCC's proposal is under urgent consideration. The three months' period from the owner's notification of intended operations expires on Friday 23 October. I shall reach my decision before that date.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the level of damage to SSSIs, which I believe he said amounted to 8,700 hectares every year. If I may correct him on that point, the NCC did not say that 8,700 hectares were damaged every year, but that it found that 8,700 hectares had been damaged in 1980 from all causes, of which about half was due to agriculture. It should not be assumed that that rate of damage will continue. Much must have been due to ignorance, which it is the purpose of the new guidance and procedures to remove.

Mr. Graham: I quoted from the speech of the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in which he said that, on average, that was the loss every year. I have not referred to Hansard, but I shall look at that again and engage in correspondence.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is important to have those points on the record. Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) never makes mistakes, and there has to be a typographical error somewhere. I cannot imagine that it is up there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries talked about the renotification process and 1984. I understand that most sites will be renotified before the end of the present financial year. In a few cases survey work could not be carried out this year, and will be undertaken in the spring of 1983.
Broader questions have covered many aspects of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the protection of SSSIs. Anxiety has been expressed by many Members about cases where, despite those provisions, harm has been done to a site. Hon. Members are worried also about the fact that resources allocated to


the NCC may be insufficient to enable it to secure the maximum benefit for conservation from the Act. My door and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services are always open to discuss such matters with the NCC. We have regular discussions with Sir Ralph Verney, and there are visits to all parts of the country to discuss such matters with NCC officials. There is no doubt that the NCC will make further bids, and we shall listen to the claims that it makes upon resources.
I share the anxiety about the cases in which, even though no offence has been committed, the spirit of voluntary co-operation, which underlies the provisions of the Act, has been flouted. The cases where damaging operations are being carried out on land on which the NCC has publicly stated its intention to notify an SSSI are especially worrying. That is contrary to the advice given in the code. I hope that its publication, through this guidance, will minimise cases of that sort. It is important for the long-term success of the Act that they should be minimised.
I believe that the Government can count on the support of all responsible organisations in encouraging the observance of voluntary restraint in such cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has great expertise in the subject, and he has had experience not only as a successful sportsman but as one who is interested in the countryside and whose experience was hewn during the passage of the Bill about a year ago. We welcome his wise counsel on the NCC. I am grateful for his contribution and for the fact that his experience and expertise are held in the highest regard outside the Chamber. He talked about the value of voluntary cooperation, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Skipton (Mr. Watson), and for Harborough (Mr. Farr).
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the encouraging signs, which was in stark contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who was kind enough to send me a note to say that he had to leave the debate early. I am grateful for that courtesy. He mentioned the Rayner review, as did the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
There has been much speculation about the objectives of a Rayner review. The terms of reference require the staff needs of the NCC to be examined, but they in no way prejudge whether the number of staff should be cut or increased. It is a question for the taxpayer of value for money. I have the highest regard for the NCC's competence, after my contacts with it over the past 15 months. It has a great deal of work to do over the next 12 months.
The NCC's morale and determination to implement urgently and competently the vital work for our countryside and heritage is impressive.

Mr. Hardy: The timing of the inquiry is singularly inappropriate, when the Nature Conservancy Council is seeking to respond to new challenges and real needs.

Mr. Macfarlane: It is part and parcel of the regular system of review. We have had long discussions, and the chairman of the council fully understands the urgency. We want to get on with the overall work that is needed.
Having mentioned the cases where there is damage to existing SSSIs, I point out that checks carried out by the NCC during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill show that in 1980 15 per cent. of all the SSSIs suffered damage, due in about half of the cases to agricultural operations, but no similar study has been conducted since the measure became law, although the subject has been in the limelight, and if the number of cases reported to me is anything to go by, the position has been much improved. A number of cases that do not hit the headlines are being resolved satisfactorily at local level and discussions on several potential management agreements are proceeding smoothly.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley referred to the visit that I made with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to Weldon Woods in Northamptonshire. That was not the first time that Ministers had visited sites where there had been a dispute and ministerial interest was necessary. The site was part of a scrub woodland, a relic of the ancient Rockingham forest. It was the subject of a felling licence application by the owner.
As a result of NCC objections the case came to Ministers for decision under the informal administrative arrangements. It was decided that the owner should be allowed to fell part of the wood and return it to agriculture—it is cheek by jowl with an old American air force runway from the 1939–1945 war—and by appropriate husbandry to regenerate the remainder and another part of the woodland. The objective is mutual cooperation among all the interested parties. That case is again an example of the voluntary factor at work.
I do not wish to go into details of particular proposals, as time is short. In all cases where an objection is raised by the NCC, my colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I consult together and give the fullest consideration to the council's views as well as to those of other parties. I cannot undertake that in all cases the objection will prevail. That would reduce Ministers to the status of rubber stamps.
I deal next with finance for the NCC to enable it to back up its objections. For the current financial year the NCC's allocation is 11¼ million. Despite the severe restrictions on Government spending, that is an increase of about £600,000 in real terms over the previous year's allocation. That is not the only sum available for the consequences of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. If the council wishes to devote more of its allocation to that purpose—as I said, it has a continuing programme of site protection—it will meet with no objection from me. We shall shortly be considering all allocations for 1983–84. My colleagues and I will consider carefully all available evidence and information about the likely trends in activity under the Wildlife and Countryside Act in reaching a decision. In particular we shall take note of the points made in the debate.
I shall read the debate carefully and reply to all the points that have been made. The code is essentially about providing a framework for drawing together all those who have an interest in, a responsibility towards and a love of our wildflife and countryside. The whole object of the legislation is partnership and communication. Neither the Act nor the guidance should be seen as a vehicle for exclusive bureaucracy. This was the general wish, I believe, of those who took part in the lengthy debate in the spring and summer of 1981.
It is easy for people or organisations to make destructive comments and to endeavour to make political capital. At the end of the day, what is needed is the determination of everyone to make the guidance and the Act work. We cannot have rigorous and punitive measures through legislation. It has to be a matter or partnership and good will. That is what the great majority of the people of our country want. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the legislation—the very first of its kind—works effectively to safeguard our country's precious heritage.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STANDING COMMITTEES ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That during proceedings in the Standing Committee in respect of the Industrial Training (Clothing and Allied Products Board) Order 1969 (Amendment) Order 1982, the Industrial Training (Offshore Petroleum Board) Order 1982, the Industrial Training (Plastics Processing Board) Order 1982, the Industrial Training (Paper and Paper Products Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 and the Industrial Training (Printing and Publishing Board) (Revocation) Order 1982, paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.) shall apply with the substitution in line 41 of 'two and a half hours' for 'one and a half hours'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — Caernarvon-Portmadoc Trunk Road

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am pleased, so early after the Summer Recess, to have an opportunity to raise in the House a question which is of some worry to a number of my constituents—namely the failure of successive Governments to improve the A487 trunk road between Caernarfon and Porthmadog. I have letters on file to the Welsh Office and Gwynedd county council since June 1974, three months after I entered Parliament, on various aspects of this road, and the need for its modernisation, but progress has been minimal. Indeed, at times it would appear that the improvements which my constituents seek are further away than ever.
This road forms part of two trunk routes. One is the Bangor to Fishguard trunk road, which is essentially the north-south route along the western Welsh seaboard. The other is the north-south trunk road leading to Cardiff. The A487 links Caernarfon, the county town of Gwynedd, to the A470 main north-south trunk road, a few miles to the south of Porthmadog. The road is, therefore, one of major importance for both the tourist industry, and for those wishing to go frorn the capital of Gwynedd to the capital of Wales, which includes growing numbers of those involved in local government and offices of central Government, as the Minister will know, as well as the increasing number of voluntary bodies which are organising themselves on an all-Wales basis.
It is also, of course, the path trodden by those making their way from Caernarfon to the Arms Park national stadium. This is, in other words, a vital part of the north-south link in Wales, and many of us feel that it is high time that the Welsh Office started thinking in terms of north-south in Wales, rather than giving the impression that the only roads that matter in its view are those running into England.
A generation ago, the Caernarfon-Porthmadog road was regarded as being of reasonable standard for that era. Subsequently, little has been done to modernise it, and in 1969 the Development Corporation for Wales said in its report, "Road Communications in North Wales" that the A487 Fishguard-Bangor road was "of major importance". It added that, in view of the withdrawal of rail services under the Beeching plan, which ended rail links between Porthmadog and Caernarfon,
There is clearly a need to provide alternative road communication to make up, as far as possible, for the loss.
It is my contention that successive Governments, Tory and Labour, have totally failed to provide this alternative of good road links, in the case of the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog. I would add, at this point, that Caernarfon is one of the largest towns in Wales which has no rail service whatsoever. It is, therefore, even more dependent on having good roads.
When we see how the Llanllyfni bypass on the A487 to the north of Caernarfon has drifted back, having undergone a public participation exercise some years ago, to now being designated for commencement sometime after 1987, we really do start to despair about getting a modern road service for the Caernarfon area. Parts of the Caernarfon-Porthmadog road have not even reached this preparation stage, and stretches with critical problems


have had no feasibility studies completed. I suggest that the Welsh Office have shown culpable neglect in not making faster progress with this route.
I wish to make it clear that I am not seeking a motorway between Caernarfon and Porthmadog, not even a dual carriageway. Those are luxuries enjoyed by other areas, but we have learnt the hard way in my part of Wales that they are not facilities which the Government will afford us.
I am, therefore, at this stage, pressing merely for a good, 24-ft wide, single carriageway, with grass verges or pavements that give distant visibility, and a fast safe route for traffic. The Welsh Council publication "Roads in Wales", which appeared in 1974, has already designated the A487 to receive substantial improvement up to the 24-ft standard, but little has been done to achieve this for large parts of the Caernarfon-Porthmadog section. I am also seeking to take the trunk route traffic away from the conurbations, which at present creates the twin evils of significant road safety hazards and a slowing down of journey time.
If the Government press ahead with their reported intention to increase lorry weights to 38 or 40 tonnes, the need for such road improvements becomes even more acute, particularly in those areas which cannot benefit from the Government's plans to try to move more freight to the railways. Perhaps the Minister in replying could indicate how the Welsh Office intends to safeguard villages and towns in Wales, such as those on the A487, from the effects of heavier lorries. Are we to have many more new bypasses, such as has been announced by the Department of Transport, or are such luxuries only to be provided in England? Does the Welsh Office accept the recommendations of the Armitage report in this context to spend resources on new roads and bypasses?
There are four parts of the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog on which I seek assurances from the Minister. Three of these are on the stretch between Caernarfon and Llanllyfni, and the fourth concerns the Porthmadog area itself. I shall not dwell on the Pant Glas problem, which has had half a job done on it recently, nor on the Llanwnda junction or the Glanmorfa village, which have had go-aheads for minor schemes. I am grateful for small mercies—I only wish that the Welsh Office were tackling the whole problem as a coherent whole, rather than playing with it in a piecemeal fashion, which can cost more in the long-term and prejudice certain policy options such as the route to the Porthmadog bypass.
In the Gwynedd county council transport policy subnission of 1976–77, which should be the basic document for formulating a strategic approach to roads such as this, the characteristics of the A487 showed that between Caernarfon and Llanwnda as much as 75 per cent. of the road falls below the 24 ft standard and 40 per cent. of both the horizontal and vertical alignment are classed as "fair" or "bad". On the Llanwnda to Llanllyfni stretch of the road, 94 per cent. is below the 24 ft standard and 69 per cent. of the horizontal alignment and 43 per cent. of the vertical alignment is inadequate. Little has improved since 1976. Later studies have shown that between Caernarfon and Llanllyfni overtaking is restricted or prevented on no less than 86 per cent. of the road length outside the speed-restricted areas. Furthermore, of the 28 side-road junctions that come into the A487 between Pont

Seiont, Caernarfon and Llanllyfni, no fewer than 26 have inadequate visibility against accepted standards in both the left and right directions. Only one junction has adequate visibility in both directions. The accident frequency at Pont Seiont, Penygroes and Llanllyfni is between four and five times higher than the accepted standard for an unimproved trunk road. The summer traffic volumes double the number of vehicles using the road. Taken together, these statistics paint in graphic terms the picture of a trunk road in acute need of improvement.
The first point on the road, working from the Caernarfon end, which requires a major scheme is at Pont Seiont, a mile from Caernarfon itself. The bridge is within the town's 30-mph limit, is on an S-bend and has approach roads of significant gradient on either side. It can be lethal on ice and has been an accident blackspot. A couple of years ago, there was a very sad fatal accident there. The bridge has been acknowledged to be structurally unsafe and a public consultation took place as long ago as 1977 on alternative routes. One of these has been identified as a preferred line and the work was expected to go ahead during 1982. Indeed, it is a natural follow-on from the Caernarfon inner relief road which brings high speed traffic into a bottleneck at South Road, Caernarfon at present. Unfortunately, the present Government have pushed the Pont Seiont project back, according to "Roads in Wales" 1980 so as to start not before 1987 at a cost in 1979 terms of £3 million. Will the Minister state categorically that the bridge is safe for present traffic without weight restriction? If heavier lorries are to be allowed, can he give an assurance about its safety for 40-tonne lorries? In any case, for road safety reasons, will he look again at the timing of this scheme and bring it forward?
Secondly, will the Minister state whether the brigade at my home village of Bontnewydd, over the river Gwyrfai, is regarded at present as being safe, and will it be able to cope with heavier lorries? If it cannot cope with the juggernauts that the Government are contemplating, how does the Minister see an alternative route for traffic? Will he undertake to study this bridge and to ensure that its condition is upgraded if necessary to cope with the lorry traffic which might be foreseeable over the next few years?
Thirdly, I come to the most pressing problem of all—the need for a bypass for the villages of Penygroes and Llanllyfni. I have written letter after letter to the Welsh Office about this and, as the Minister well knows, I have tabled numerous questions too. The A487 goes through the middle of these two busy villages. The nature and layout of the housing there and the slopes in both villages make it impossible to achieve significant traffic improvement without the provision of a bypass. The village of Llanllyfni, in particular, suffers because the road is narrow there, is on a steep hill with minimal pavements and is close to terraced housing. There have been a number of accidents at Penygroes and Llanllyfni—and a particular blackspot is on the way out of Llanllyfni near the cemetery at the southern end.
As it happens, there is an obvious route for a bypass for those villages, namely, the old railway line which could be used from the village of Groeslon or even from Llanwnda itself, through to beyond Llanllyfni, relinking with the present road near the Nebo turning. That railway


has already been converted to being a haulage road for heavy lorries carrying gravel from nearby pits to the CEGB construction site at Dinorwig.
I know that successive Ministers under both the Labour Government and the present Government have considered the problem, but nothing concrete has been decided. In a letter dated 11 May 1981, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales told me that a route study had been undertaken and that Gwynedd county council had submitted a report to the Welsh Office for consideration. I ask the Minister for a firm commitment tonight that the scheme will go ahead immediately into the preparation pool, with whatever necessary feasibility studies being made as a matter of urgency, and that the Welsh Office will make every endeavour thereafter to make progress on the bypass proposal. I ask specifically, if there are to be additional bypasses authorised to help deal with the heavy lorry problems, that this be one of them. I feel that it is crazy that there should be hundreds of building workers unemployed in the Gwynedd area, that the land for this bypass be in local authority ownership as it has been since 1973, and yet we prefer to pay people to do nothing rather than pay them to undertake such socially and economically useful work.
May I also say, at this point, that the timing of road surface improvement work, carried out this summer on the A487 in the vicinity of Groeslon, and in Llanllyfni itself, was highly regrettable. For weeks at the height of the holiday period, when the road is at its busiest, there was no surface whatsoever on those two stretches, and traffic was delayed while work proceeded. Surely it is possible to schedule such work out of the three-month period of the year when tourist traffic is at its height?
I turn now to the Porthmadog area, where again there are problems for both the local inhabitants and for travellers arising from the route of the A487. The town of Porthmadog is a focal point through which passes not only Welsh north-south traffic but also traffic coming from the Midlands of England on holiday to the Lleyn peninsula—to Pwllheli, Criccieth, Abersoch and Nefyn. Porthmadog itself is a bubbling and busy holiday centre, and, while the main road through the town is wide, it is packed with pedestrians in summer, both during the day and in the evenings. Geographically, Porthmadog forms a bottleneck for traffic, being located on an estuary, and further delays in the vicinity are caused by the villages of Penmorfa, Tremadog, Minffordd and Penrhyndeudraeth. Between Porthmadog and Penrhyndeudraeth there is a narrow cob with a toll-gate, which is unsuited to present-day traffic conditions. While the abolition of the toll may well come through a decision of residents in the area between now and next summer—thanks to the enterprise of a group of local persons who bought the toll-gate and cob some five years ago—the traffic problem will remain since the traffic will then only arrive that much quicker into the tail-back at Porthmadog. I ask the Minister whether the cob can carry 40-tonne lorries.
The only real answer is for a bypass to be built which would take traffic away ideally from the northern end of Penmorfa, bypassing Tremadog and Porthmadog, running across the Troeth roughly parallel to the railway line and possibly also helping to bypass Minffordd and at least part of Penrhyndeudraeth. In February 1975, the Dwyfor council pressed for a meeting with Ministers at the Welsh

Office to discuss a Porthmadog bypass. Policy 3A of the Porthmadog-Ffestiniog district plan, published by Dwyfor council in June of this year. states:
The early definition of the route for a bypass to Porthmadog, and its early implementation is seen as an essential part of the improvement of the highway network within the area.
That document also sees the bypassing of Tremadog as an integral part of the A487 problem in and near Porthmadog.
Such reports and recommendations are, sadly, nothing new. The Development Corporation for Wales, in the study of 1969, specifically noted that a new road alignment of the A487 was needed between Tremadog and Penrhyndeudraeth, to form a Porthmadog bypass.
If the work that. I have proposed could be undertaken, it would reduce the travelling time on the north-south journey by up to 12 minutes, obviously more in summer when traffic congestion can cause jams holding up traffic for half an hour al: a time. It would create much needed work in the area, it would improve the safety and wellbeing of the residents of the area, and in the longer term it would make it possible for the area not to be wholly cut off the map, if heavier lorries are introduced. It will also make it easier to develop new job opportunities by way of new factories.
The A487 is a trunk road, and the responsibility for giving it priority, and for getting on with the job of bringing it into the second half of the twentieth century, rests with the Welsh Office and the Minister. I appeal Ito him tonight to show that he is aware of the problems of western Gwynedd, that he is not myopic in thinking that only east-west traffic matters, and I ask him to give commitments that will lead to early action on this road.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): I have been very well aware for some time of the interest the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has in the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog, and in particular that major improvements are made especially at the villages of Penygroes and Llanllyfni. He has represented the desirability of such improvements on behalf of his constituents.
It is entirely natural that people feel that their own particular towns and villages are worthy of priority treatment, because they have to live with the traffic problems of their own particular areas. However, I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that the Secretary of State has to consider, and make judgments on, many claims for priority treatment for trunk road improvements from all over the Principality, and has to decide which routes should be given priority claim to the available resources. In doing so, he has, of course, to take note of the national as well as the local interest.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government' s priority for trunk roads in Wales made clear in the document "Roads in Wales 1980". It is to improve the main trunk road east-west routes in North and South Wales. I do not believe that these priorities are a party political matter. They have been widely endorsed, and I am happy that we have been able to make very significant progress over the last two-and-a-half years in getting the east-west programme in North Wales under way. Four major schemes have been started—the Hawarden by -pas, and Colcon stage I on the A55 and the Bangor and Llanfair PG by-passes. The current estimated gross cost of these schemes is £172 million, and further schemes to improve


the A55 are at an advanced stage of preparation. This is ample indication of our commitment to improving trunk road communications in North Wales.
I cannot reconcile those facts with the hon. Gentleman's statement that dual carriageways were not for his part of Wales. If his part of Wales is North Wales, a substantial investment has been made. I spent a pleasant time last week looking at the great improvements that we are making in North Wales, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman regards as his particular part of Wales.
Our strategy does not mean, however, that the needs of other routes such as the A487 are being neglected or ignored, although clearly there is a limitation in the amount of resources, both financial and staff, which can be devoted to them. There are always a large number of minor but worthwhile improvement schemes being undertaken by county councils on behalf of the Department. This point can be demonstrated by what has happened on the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog. Thirteen minor improvement schemes have been completed on behalf of the Department by Gwynedd county council in the last eight years, the largest of these being two schemes each costing more than £100,000 north of Pont Tafarn Faig and south of Dolbenmaen. The total cost of these improvements was just under £0·5 million. A further two schemes at Pantglas Village and north of Goat Inn, Llandwyfach, at a combined cost of £260,000, are under way. In addition, contracts have recently been let for improvements at Penmorfa-Glanmorfa and Llanwnda junction at a combined cost of just under £500,000 and work on these is expected to start shortly. A further seven schemes, of which the more significant are those for the Golan junction, Penmorfa and that from Pont Seiont to Bontnewydd, are in course of preparation. It can hardly be said, therefore, that the route has been overlooked and certainly not by the present Government in whose term of office the majority of the schemes I have mentioned have been implemented or expenditure on them committed.
I am also pleased that Gwynedd county council has been undertaking improvements to roads for which it is the responsible highway authority. The hon. Member has referred me to the work which it is doing on the Caernarfon-Pwllheli road. I welcome this, but it should not be forgotten that a substantial element of local authority spending on county roads is financed by central government grant.
The projects that have been carried out to date on the trunk road between Caernarfon and Porthmadog have been admittedly relatively minor improvements to overcome localised problems requiring urgent attention. But the need for, and the scale of, improvements, must be kept in perspective. Traffic flows are very low during winter months and even in the peak of the holiday season are not high by many standards. Accident rates are not high and on the length between Caernarfon and Porthmadog are broadly in line with those elsewhere in Great Britain. Indeed, in the built-up areas of Penygroes and Llanllyfni the accident rate is well below the national figure with only 17 recorded accidents involving personal injury over the three-year period 1979 to 1981. Of those, 12 were slight injuries and the remainder serious but with no fatalities. In the same period over the route between Caernarfon and Porthmadog 72 accidents occurred, with one fatality, 22

serious and 49 slight injuries. Maintenance of the road within its physical limitations is generally good, with annual expenditure on it being a little higher than the county average.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the traffic congestion which arose during August this year. I regret that this should have happened, but the difficulties between Llanllyfni and Penygroes during the period were caused in part because the Wales Gas Board was engaged in laying a new trunk main in the road in Penygroes with new service connections to each house. There were also some problems arising from the surface on part of the road near Groeslon becoming polished and a lorry jack-knifed in this area. The problem was rectified in September in both situations. It is certainly the policy of the Department to endeavour to carry out routine maintenance outside the main holiday periods.
The hon. Member has raised a number of specific issues about the road between Caernarfon and Porthmadog. First, Pont Seiont. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the existing bridge has been buttressed and that it is not considered necessary to impose a weight restriction upon it. The planning of a replacement crossing must, however, proceed; and towards this end a public participation exercise into the choice of routes was held in June 1977. Following consideration of comments received, we announced a preferred route in December 1979 and this has been protected for planning purposes. I know that the hon. Member is disappointed that on current assumptions room cannot be found for this scheme in the programme of major schemes until after 1987. This does not mean, however, that work on its preparation has ceased. In fact we are endeavouring to take into account certain changes in traffic which it is forecast will be using Coed Helen lane and we are expecting a report from our consultants on this by about the end of November.
Next, the bridge at Bontnewydd. As I know it is the hon. Gentleman's native village, I am glad to be able to give him some reassurance about a bridge that he knows better than most.
I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not a weak bridge. It is perfectly adequate to take normal construction and use traffic. What it cannot take are abnormally heavy loads. The CEGB has asked us in the past to strengthen the bridge to take some of its loads in this category and the Department has indicated that it stands ready to do so provided the CEGB will bear the cost. A scheme of strengthening has been prepared, but the CEGB has not up to this point felt that the cost involved—some hundreds of thousands of pounds—was worth it.
As regards the proposal that Penygroes and Llanllyfni should be bypassed, the Department commissioned and has received a report from the surveyor of the Gwynedd county council into the possibilities of improving the road from Pont Seiont to south of Llanllyfni. The report identified five main improvement areas and gave a recommended order of priority for tackling them. The improvment recommended as having the most urgent priority was that between Pont Seiont and Bontnewydd. That was not the priority that the hon. Member gave a few moments ago but that is the priority given by the Gwynedd surveyor.
As I indicated earlier, this scheme is in preparation and I very much hope that resources will be available so that it can be started within the next two years. A bypass of


Penygroes and Llanllyfni rated fourth in the order of priority. As the hon. Member is aware, a possible route for a bypass using the old railway bed from Llanwnda to Llanllyfni has been protected for some time, but this is not necessarily the simple solution that some people think. Inevitably, the considerations are complex. Its costs will certainly be not less than £2 million to £3 million, and against that one has to bear in mind that the traffic flows are in the region of only 6,500 vehicles per day in August and substantially less in the winter months. The solution to the problem here will not necessarily be easy to arrive at, and I cannot give the hon. Member any guarantees as to the progress which can be made with this scheme.
The position in respect of the Porthmadog area is that the Welsh Office has commissioned consultant engineers to prepare a route and feasibility study for improvements of the A487 from Maentwrog to west of Porthmadog. The work is well in hand and the report is expected early next year. Again, the expenditure on improvements in this area could be of a significant order, and the report will therefore need very careful consideration.
The hon. Member has rightly recognised the importance of the A487, not only to his constituency but because of the link it provides in the north-south trunk road network in Wales down the western seaboard from Bangor to Fishguard. A number of improvements have been carried out in recent years to this route in the south of the country and also between Caernarfon and Bangor, where minor improvements made over the last eight years have cost almost 1 million. In respect of this area two reports by consulting engineers on the improvement of the road at Griffiths crossing to Caernarfon and the Port Dinorwic bypass are being examined in the Welsh Office currently.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that the Government as a whole are fully aware of the need to

remove through traffic, especially heavy goods vehicles, from our towns and villages. Indeed, our major improvement programme will do just that, removing substantial volumes of through traffic from sizeable communities. I believe that I have indicated this evening the extent to which we are committing resources towards that end. But within that programme of expenditure on major schemes, there is still a place for a programme of worthwhile improvements to trunk roads such as the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog. In many cases those are being carried out by and in co-operation with county councils such as Gwynedd. The expenditure on individual schemes may be small in comparison with the major improvements but they are worth while for all that.
I think that the hon. Member will recognise that the expenditure to which we are committed in the major east-west project along the A55 is substantial, and it is a commitment which his party. I am sure, supports, as does mine. It was supported by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, I have never heard any opposition to the importance of constructing the east-west road. I know that we wanted to improve north-south, but we must not dismiss the significance of the investment that is being made.
Major schemes along routes such as the A487 between Caernarfon and Porthmadog will certainly be considered very carefully in the light of all the relevant facts. But with the major part of our resources committed to a programme which I know commands wide agreement, it would be wrong of me to give any specific commitments as to the rate at which we should be able to make progress on such schemes.

Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.